Oregon’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (RMA), one of the first extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws implemented in the US, is facing its first challenge in court. The outcome of the suit could have significant implications for both the RMA and similar EPR laws taking effect in other states.
On July 30, 2025, the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) sued Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Environmental Quality Commission (EQC), and Attorney General (AG) in an Oregon federal court, asking the court to halt implementation of the RMA and invalidate its implementing regulations.
Oregon’s RMA has been closely watched by other states and market participants across the packaging, consumer products, food, beverage, and logistics industries. The lawsuit thus warrants careful monitoring by companies that introduce – or may be deemed by EPR laws to introduce – packaging, paper products, or food service ware into commerce in EPR states.
Below, we explore the background of the case and its potential impacts for producers in the state and beyond.
Introduction to EPR and the RMA
Enacted in 2021, the RMA is the first US EPR law for packaging to take effect. EPR laws like the RMA are designed to shift the responsibility for managing the environmental impacts of packaging, paper products, and food service ware from local governments to the companies that introduce these materials into the market.
Under the RMA, most producers – including manufacturers, brand owners, importers, wholesalers, and distributors – must join a producer responsibility organization (PRO) or develop their own compliance program. Oregon’s PRO (and the PRO in every other state to select one thus far) is the Circular Action Alliance (CAA) – a nonprofit founded and governed by producers representing the food, beverage, consumer goods, and retail industries. CAA is tasked with administering the program, collecting data, and setting and collecting fees from producers based on the type, weight, and recyclability of materials introduced to Oregon.
The RMA covers a wide range of products and materials, including packaging, paper products, and food service ware. It requires producers to register, report material volumes, and pay eco-modulated fees, which are intended to incentivize the use of recyclable or lower-impact materials. The fees collected are used to fund recycling system improvements, collection, transportation, and responsible processing of covered materials. As the first EPR law to take effect, the RMA has been a guidepost for stakeholders seeking to anticipate the future of EPR in the US.
Overview of the complaint
The plaintiff, NAW, is a national trade organization representing approximately 35,000 wholesale and distribution companies operating throughout the US. The defendants are DEQ and EQC, which are responsible for implementing the RMA, and AG Daniel Rayfield, in his official capacity. The complaint alleges that the RMA unconstitutionally delegates authority to the CAA, which the complaint describes as a “self-interested private organization” based on its ties to major producers. The principal legal theories the complaint advances are that the RMA violates:
- The state’s constitutional “nondelegation” doctrine by transferring regulatory and fee-setting authority to the CAA
- The US Constitution’s Dormant Commerce Clause by allegedly impeding and unduly burdening interstate commerce
- The “unconstitutional conditions” doctrine by conditioning market access on contracts that require producers to waive certain interests and judicial recourse, and
- Due process under state and federal law, in relation to the standards and procedural safeguards for challenging fees, classifications, and enforcement actions, and by requiring producers to enter into binding arbitration agreements with private third parties.
As a remedy, the complaint seeks a declaration that the RMA, its implementing regulations, and related program documents violate both the Oregon and US Constitutions, as well as an injunction to bar their enforcement and an award of associated costs and fees.
Significance of the NAW lawsuit
The outcome of this lawsuit could have far-reaching effects for producers in Oregon and for the broader landscape of producer responsibility regulation in the US. Key considerations include:
- Potential disruption to 2025–2027 compliance timelines. Producers were required to begin paying CAA invoices as early as July 1, 2025. A temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction – if sought and granted – could pause fee collection, reporting schedules, or penalties, injecting uncertainty for budgeting, packaging design initiatives, and supply-chain contracts.
- Scrutiny of private-party fee setting and other delegated regulatory powers. At the heart of the complaint is Oregon’s reliance on CAA – as the sole designated PRO authorized to administer the RMA – which uses a proprietary and confidential fee-setting methodology. The outcome of this case may constrain other states’ options for delegating quasi-regulatory authority over fee formulas, lifecycle assessment protocols, and dispute-resolution procedures to private actors serving as PROs.
- Interplay with interstate commerce and packaging uniformity. Many regulated companies distribute identical products nationally. Oregon’s law may incentivize producers to redesign packaging on a nationwide basis. A ruling emphasizing burdens on interstate commerce could curb state efforts to impose material-specific restrictions, eco-modulation surcharges, and recyclability requirements.
- Impact on small and mid-sized businesses. NAW’s complaint highlights administrative, contractual, and cash-flow burdens on companies that neither manufacture nor brand goods, but nonetheless qualify as “producers” because they introduce packaged products into Oregon. The court’s analysis may clarify how EPR obligations apply across interstate supply chains.
Looking ahead
Regardless of the litigation’s trajectory and outcome, pressure on packaging producers driven by consumer demand, corporate sustainability commitments, and international trends is unlikely to abate. Companies may consider continuing to build data-collection systems, lifecycle analysis capabilities, and cross-functional governance structures that can adapt to a patchwork of EPR and recycling requirements.
Because the complaint raises federal constitutional issues – including the Dormant Commerce Clause, the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, and federal due process – any decision could set a precedent affecting the design and implementation of EPR statutes nationwide. If the court finds that Oregon’s delegation of regulatory authority to a private PRO, its fee-setting mechanisms, or various producer requirements violate federal constitutional protections, other states may revisit or revise their own EPR frameworks to avoid similar legal challenges.
The federal constitutional issues raised in this case will be of particular interest to policymakers, industry stakeholders, and legal practitioners in other states moving forward with EPR legislation, such as Colorado, California, and Minnesota, all of which have upcoming compliance deadlines.
Next steps for companies
While the litigation proceeds, the RMA remains in force. Companies that supply covered products to Oregon may consider the following actions:
- Confirm producer status and contractual allocations. Review whether your organization has registered with CAA and whether contracts with suppliers and customers clearly allocate EPR obligations under the RMA.
- Evaluate fee forecasts and budgeting assumptions. Even if the court issues an injunction, compliance expenditures could resume with retroactive effect unless the statute or regulations are permanently invalidated.
- Assess risk of duplicative or unexpected fees. Distributors are encouraged to track product flows to avoid paying CAA fees on items ultimately shipped out of state or already reported by another entity in the supply chain.
- Maintain documentation for potential reimbursement or claims. Detailed records of invoices, packaging weights, and materials could be valuable in the event of program adjustments, rebate opportunities, or litigation outcomes.
- Monitor legislative and regulatory developments. Other states, including California, Colorado, Maine, and Washington, are implementing or evaluating similar programs. Court guidance on constitutional limits may inform future rulemakings and legislative amendments.
[View source.]
