A US federal court has upheld Oregon's extended producer responsibility system for packaging. The lawsuit brought by the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors against the Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act was unsuccessful on the key points.
The US District Court for the District of Oregon is coming in his decision of 27 August 2026 to the conclusion that the Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (RMA) violates neither the dormant Commerce Clause nor the Due Process Clause of the US Constitution. The National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) thus failed with its two constitutional objections that remained following a previous proceeding.
The RMA was enacted in 2021 and establishes extended producer responsibility (EPR) in Oregon. Covered materials include packaging, printed paper, and single-use food service ware, amongst others. Obligated producers are generally required to join a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO), report volumes, and pay fees for the covered products they place on the market in Oregon.
Court sees no discrimination in retail
The NAW had argued, amongst other things, that the system disadvantaged companies in interstate commerce. The court did not follow this reasoning. It saw neither a protectionist objective nor a sufficient basis for the assumption that the law discriminated against companies outside Oregon.
The burdens on supply chains were also not considered disproportionate. The NAW had pointed out, among other things, significant costs for wholesalers and distributors, as well as the administrative effort involved in identifying and reporting the various packaging materials. In the court's view, however, higher costs for individual companies are not sufficient to prove a significant burden on trade between member states.
EPR fees remain in place
Another key question concerned the fees that producers pay to the relevant PRO. Currently, the Circular Action Alliance (CAA) is the only organisation of this type approved in Oregon. The fees are based, among other things, on the material type and quantity of the products collected. The costs of various packaging materials are to be distributed approximately in proportion to their respective share of the system's financial obligations.
The court also rejected the objection that Oregon had improperly delegated state powers to the privately organised CAA. The decisive factor was that the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality approves the programme plans of the PRO and retains ultimate decision-making and supervisory authority.
The decision thus initially strengthens the legal basis for packaging EPR in Oregon. Several other US states have also passed EPR regulations for packaging in recent years.
Source: U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon
