U.S. Packaging EPR Litigation Tracker

In plain English: does any of this change what you have to do?

Two things have changed, both in Oregon, and only one of them is the well-known one. First, companies that were members of the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors on February 6, 2026 are covered by a preliminary injunction. Joining later does not get you in.

Second, and easy to miss: there is now a limited enforcement pause that reaches producers who are NOT NAW members. Under a stipulation entered on July 16, 2026 in a second Oregon case, DEQ agreed not to issue pre-enforcement notices against members of the putative class, which is essentially every Oregon producer outside the NAW injunction, through at least August 31, 2026. Be precise about what that is and is not. It does not suspend your obligations. DEQ can still investigate you and still send warning letters. No class has been certified, so this rests on DEQ's agreement rather than a court order. And the Circular Action Alliance is not part of it, so CAA can still invoice you, pursue you, and flag you to DEQ under ORS 459A.869(10)(a). Being named publicly is a separate step and a separate list: the Producer Status List is DEQ's to publish, not CAA's. Treat it as a narrow, temporary pause on one specific DEQ action, not as relief.

The one thing worth acting on is California labeling. A court has paused enforcement of SB 343, the recyclability labeling law, so the state cannot currently enforce the October 4, 2026 deadline. That is not permission to stop. The ruling is preliminary, it can be appealed, and the law is still on the books. It also reaches further than labels: California uses SB 343 criteria to decide what counts as recyclable for SB 54 fees, so this creates real uncertainty about your 2027 fee position.

The ruling everyone was waiting for came on August 27, 2026, and Oregon won. A federal judge upheld the Recycling Modernization Act against both the dormant Commerce Clause and the due process challenge, after the first packaging EPR trial in the United States. It is a district court decision and binds no other court, but it is the first ruling of its kind on a full evidentiary record and it will shape how the remaining cases are argued.

This is a plain reading of where the cases stand, not legal advice. If your exposure is material, confirm it with counsel.

Active U.S. packaging EPR litigation

The tracker holds seven cases in three states. One is decided: Oregon won NAW v. Feldon on August 27, 2026, so the constitutional challenge to the Recycling Modernization Act is resolved at the district court and final judgment is entered. Six remain live: one more against Oregon, two against Colorado's program, two against California's SB 54 from opposite directions, and one that has already paused enforcement of California's SB 343 recyclability labeling law. Only one court has granted relief that reaches producers, and it covers a narrow group.

Every entry carries a last-confirmed date so you can see the age of the status. Court dockets are not uniformly accessible, and where a docket is closed we say so rather than implying the status was re-verified.

The wider picture

Stepping back from the individual cases. No court has enjoined a packaging EPR fee program as to producers generally. Oregon's preliminary injunction covers companies that were NAW members on February 6, 2026 and nobody else. Colorado's program is fully in effect: both cases now seek injunctions, ILMA's filed August 18, 2026 and NAW's on August 5, 2026, and neither has been granted any relief. California's program is unaffected by its challenges so far.

The exception worth acting on is SB 343. Enforcement of California's recyclability labeling law is paused, and because SB 54 borrows SB 343's recyclability criteria, the pause creates genuine uncertainty about what will count as recyclable when California fees begin in 2027. That is a design and labeling planning question, not a filing question.

Oregon has now been decided. On August 27, 2026 the court upheld the Recycling Modernization Act on a full evidentiary record, the first ruling of its kind. Two pieces of its reasoning may travel: a private nondelegation challenge to a state law under the Fourteenth Amendment must first identify a protected liberty or property interest, and a self-interested producer organization may lawfully assist an agency where the statute supplies criteria and the agency keeps the final say. What may not travel is the part doing the most work, that Oregon producers are not compelled to join CAA because the statute offers a private recycling exemption and an open path to forming another PRO.

NAW v. Feldon

U.S. District Court, District of Oregon  |  3:25-cv-01334 (Judge Michael H. Simon)  |  Filed 2025

What it means for you: Oregon won. On August 27, 2026 the court upheld the Recycling Modernization Act against both constitutional challenges, so there is no longer a pending question about whether the law survives. If you were not a NAW member on February 6, 2026, and most producers were not, nothing changes: keep registering, reporting and paying, exactly as before. If you were a member on that date, read this carefully, because the decision does not say what happens to your injunction. It is not dissolved on the docket, but the ruling removes the reasoning it rested on, so treat continued protection as unsafe to plan around and talk to counsel now rather than after an order issues. One thing worth knowing though, because it is easy to miss: a separate Oregon case, Lollicup v. Feldon, produced a limited pause on DEQ pre-enforcement notices that does reach non-NAW producers through August 31, 2026. It is much narrower than this injunction and it does not suspend your obligations. See that case for what it does and does not do.

What is challenged: The constitutionality of the Recycling Modernization Act itself, on dormant Commerce Clause and procedural due process grounds.

Where it stands: Decided. On August 27, 2026 Judge Simon issued 71-page Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (ECF 205) holding that the Recycling Modernization Act violates neither the dormant Commerce Clause nor the Due Process Clause. All three dormant Commerce Clause theories failed: no protectionist purpose, no facial discrimination in the public body exemption (NAW also lacked standing and fell outside the zone of interests), no proven discriminatory effect from the revenue and immediate consumption exemptions, no unreasonable user fee, and no substantial burden under Pike. Both due process theories failed: the RMA does not compel joining CAA, because a producer may form its own PRO or exempt itself under the private recycling rule at ORS 459A.869(13), and DEQ retains ultimate decision-making authority over the fee methodology. Neither the opinion nor the judgment mentions the February 6, 2026 preliminary injunction. Final judgment was entered for the Director on August 28, 2026 (ECF 206), so the case is over in the district court. A notice of appeal is due by September 28, 2026 under FRAP 4(a)(1)(A), and none had been docketed as of August 31, 2026.

Who is affected: The February 6, 2026 preliminary injunction shields companies that were NAW members on that date and nobody else, and the August 27, 2026 decision does not say what becomes of it. Nothing has been dissolved on the docket, but the merits ruling removes the basis on which it was granted, so members should not plan around it continuing. Every other producer remains fully subject to registration, reporting, fees and DEQ enforcement, and always has been.

Last confirmed: August 28, 2026.

Lollicup USA v. Feldon

U.S. District Court, District of Oregon  |  3:26-cv-01287 (Judge Michael H. Simon, the same judge who decided NAW v. Feldon)  |  Filed June 25, 2026

What it means for you: This is the one that reaches you if you are an Oregon producer outside the NAW injunction, and it is easy to miss because most coverage focuses on the NAW case. Under a stipulation entered July 16, 2026, DEQ agreed not to issue pre-enforcement notices against members of the putative class, which is essentially every non-NAW Oregon producer, through at least August 31, 2026. Now the limits, because they matter more than the headline. Your obligations are not suspended, so keep registering, reporting and paying. DEQ can still investigate you and still send warning letters. No class has been certified, so this rests on DEQ's agreement rather than a court order granting anyone relief. And the Circular Action Alliance is not a party, so CAA can still invoice you, pursue you for non-payment, and flag you to DEQ under ORS 459A.869(10)(a). Being named publicly is a separate step and a separate list: the Producer Status List is DEQ's to publish, not CAA's. Read it as a narrow, temporary pause on one specific DEQ action.

What is challenged: A putative class action on behalf of producers not covered by the NAW injunction, pleading the same dormant Commerce Clause and Fourteenth Amendment due process theories the court credited at the preliminary injunction stage in NAW and then rejected on the merits after trial.

Where it stands: Held in abeyance. A stipulation entered July 16, 2026 pauses Oregon DEQ pre-enforcement notices against Lollicup and putative class members through at least August 31, 2026. All other deadlines were struck pending the NAW decision, and that decision issued on August 27, 2026 upholding the Recycling Modernization Act against both the dormant Commerce Clause and the due process challenge. The joint status report is due September 10, 2026. No class certification motion has been filed, and nothing has been reported about whether the enforcement pause will be extended past August 31.

Who is affected: Essentially every Oregon producer outside the NAW injunction, which makes this the only development so far that reaches non-NAW producers. But the pause is narrower than it reads. Obligations are not suspended: registration, reporting and fees continue. DEQ keeps authority to investigate, issue warning letters and conduct other pre-enforcement activity. No class has been certified, so the protection rests on DEQ's agreement rather than a court order. And the Circular Action Alliance is not a party, so it may continue assessing fees, pursuing compliance actions and publishing non-compliance lists.

Last confirmed: July 22, 2026.

ILMA v. CDPHE

Denver District Court, Colorado  |  No. 2026CV30902  |  Filed March 12, 2026

What it means for you: Nothing changes in Colorado. Nobody asked the court to pause the program while the case runs, so it is operating normally. Register, report and pay on the usual schedule. If the case eventually succeeds it could change the program later, but there is nothing to wait for now.

What is challenged: Colorado’s packaging EPR program on due process, nondelegation and First Amendment grounds, brought by the Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association.

Where it stands: CDPHE’s motion to dismiss is pending. CDPHE argues the statutory claims are untimely under the 35-day judicial review window and that CAA and the Lubricants Packaging Management Association are necessary parties. A hearing on the motion to dismiss was reported as expected during July 2026, but July closed with no public record of a hearing or a ruling. Re-checked against secondary reporting on July 30, 2026 with no change.

Who is affected: No injunction was sought in this case. Colorado’s program remains fully in effect for all covered producers; the separate NAW v. Ryan suit has moved for a preliminary injunction and no relief has been granted.

Last confirmed: July 30, 2026. Denver District Court dockets are not freely accessible, so this status is carried forward rather than re-verified each week.

NAW v. Ryan

U.S. District Court, District of Colorado  |  No. 1:26-cv-03460 (confirmed against a PACER-derived docket mirror, August 16, 2026)  |  Filed July 30, 2026

What it means for you: Nothing changes in Colorado today. NAW has asked the court to pause the program, which is the first time anyone has asked in Colorado, but no ruling has issued. Keep registering, reporting and paying 2026 dues on the normal schedule. Watch this one: if the injunction is granted it would be the first Colorado pause, and a ruling either way will shape the other cases.

What is challenged: Colorado’s Producer Responsibility Program for Statewide Recycling Act (HB 22-1355), brought by the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors as sole plaintiff and represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance. Four claims: delegation of fee-setting power to a private entity (Circular Action Alliance) without adequate oversight, under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause; compelled membership in and funding of CAA as a condition of operating in the state, under the First Amendment; the statutory bar on disclosing the mandated fees to customers; and CAA spending mandatory dues on its own policy advocacy. NAW also argues the producer definition wrongly reaches wholesale distributors who do not choose packaging materials.

Where it stands: Newly filed. NAW moved for a preliminary injunction on August 5, 2026, in a separate filing after the July 30 complaint; the State response is due September 16, 2026. The injunction request still distinguishes this case from ILMA v. CDPHE, which sought none. CAA has said it is aware of the suit and is not a party; CDPHE has declined to comment.

Who is affected: Nobody yet. No relief has been granted, so registration, reporting and 2026 dues remain due for all covered producers in Colorado.

Last confirmed: August 16, 2026. Docket number 1:26-cv-03460 confirmed against a PACER-derived docket mirror on August 16, 2026. The September 16 response date is from counsel reporting and has not been read from the docket itself.

State of Nebraska et al. v. Heller et al.

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California  |  2:26-cv-02214 (Judge Dena M. Coggins; Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney)  |  Filed June 22, 2026

What it means for you: Nothing changes in California. This was filed in June 2026 and no court has paused anything. Keep working to your SB 54 dates. A lawsuit being filed, even by 17 states, does not suspend a law.

What is challenged: SB 54, brought by a coalition of 17 state attorneys general led by Nebraska with the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors as the sole business plaintiff. Alleges dormant Commerce Clause and First Amendment violations, including a challenge to SB 54’s prohibition on disclosing EPR costs on customer receipts.

Where it stands: Active and moving. On August 19, 2026 the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint and a motion for a preliminary injunction. The court set a hearing on that motion for January 15, 2027 at 1:30 p.m. before Judge Coggins, which is after California’s program formally begins on January 1, 2027. The docket is public, not sealed: the earlier 2:26-at-01047 was the district’s temporary pre-assignment placeholder, widely misreported as a sealing designation, and the permanent number 2:26-cv-02214 issued.

Who is affected: No relief has been granted. SB 54 obligations continue unchanged.

Last confirmed: August 31, 2026.

NRDC v. Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery

San Francisco Superior Court, California  |  Case number not publicly confirmed  |  Filed June 2, 2026

What it means for you: Nothing changes today, and it is worth understanding which direction this one points. These plaintiffs are arguing the SB 54 rules are too weak, not that the program should not exist. So if they win, the likely result is tighter requirements on producers rather than fewer. Keep planning to comply.

What is challenged: The SB 54 final regulations, from the environmental side. Oceana, NRDC and the Californians Against Waste Foundation allege the regulations create unauthorized carveouts, allow indefinite exemptions, and let technologies generating hazardous waste count as recycling.

Where it stands: The American Chemistry Council and the Alliance of California’s Farmers and Ranchers moved to intervene on July 1, 2026. No ruling on either motion and no hearing date reported. The petition is verified, so CalRecycle must answer allegation by allegation rather than by general denial.

Who is affected: No relief granted. Note that SB 54 now faces challenges from both directions at once, one arguing the rules go too far and one arguing they do not go far enough.

Last confirmed: July 10, 2026.

California League of Food Producers v. Bonta

U.S. District Court, Southern District of California  |  3:26-cv-01675-WQH-JAC (Judge William Q. Hayes)  |  Filed March 17, 2026

What it means for you: Do not tear up your labeling plan. California cannot enforce SB 343 right now, but the law is still on the books, the ruling is preliminary rather than final, and it can be appealed or reversed. On-pack changes have long lead times, so the safe read is to keep designing to the SB 343 rules. The bigger point is upstream: California uses SB 343 criteria to decide what counts as recyclable for SB 54 fees, so this uncertainty reaches your 2027 fee position, not just your artwork.

What is challenged: SB 343, the Truth in Recycling labeling law, on First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment vagueness grounds. Brought by a coalition that grew from 18 to 21 food, packaging and retail trade associations.

Where it stands: Preliminary injunction granted July 14, 2026, barring the Attorney General from enforcing SB 343 until further order. Four provisions were found unconstitutionally vague and severed, so the 60 percent collection-and-sorting threshold survives on paper while enforcement is paused. No notice of appeal has been reported, though a preliminary injunction is immediately appealable.

Who is affected: Enforcement is paused less than three months before the October 4, 2026 compliance deadline. Because SB 54 relies on SB 343 recyclability criteria to decide what counts as recyclable in California, the ruling reaches beyond labeling into the fee program.

Last confirmed: July 21, 2026.

Frequently asked questions