Every active lawsuit against a U.S. packaging EPR program, with the court, the docket, what is actually being challenged, where it stands, and crucially who is and is not covered by any relief granted. Each entry carries a last-confirmed date so you can judge how current it is.
Free. Updated weekly. No login required.
Facts on this page were last verified against primary sources on July 26, 2026. The EPR Atlas is re-checked weekly; this stamp moves only when a verification pass actually runs, not when the site rebuilds.
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 name you on its public non-compliance list. 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 date to watch is the end of August 2026, when a federal judge rules on whether Oregon's Recycling Modernization Act is constitutional. That is the first ruling of its kind on a full trial record, and whichever way it goes it will shape how the other 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.
Six cases are live across three states. Two challenge Oregon's Recycling Modernization Act, one challenges Colorado's program, two challenge California's SB 54 from opposite directions, and one 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.
| Case | State | Filed | Current posture | Last confirmed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NAW v. Feldon 3:25-cv-01334 (Judge Michael H. Simon) |
OR | 2025 | Five-day bench trial held July 13 to 17, 2026. | verified July 23, 2026 |
| Lollicup USA v. Feldon Docket number not publicly confirmed |
OR | June 25, 2026 | Held in abeyance. | verified July 22, 2026 |
| ILMA v. CDPHE No. 2026CV30902 |
CO | March 12, 2026 | CDPHE’s motion to dismiss is pending. | verified July 7, 2026 |
| State of Nebraska et al. v. Heller et al. Reported as No. 2:26-at-01047, a pre-assignment number |
CA | June 22, 2026 | Early. | verified July 10, 2026 |
| NRDC v. Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Case number not publicly confirmed |
CA | June 2, 2026 | The American Chemistry Council and the Alliance of California’s Farmers and Ranchers moved to intervene on July 1, 2026. | verified July 10, 2026 |
| California League of Food Producers v. Bonta 3:26-cv-01675-WQH-JAC (Judge William Q. Hayes) |
CA | March 17, 2026 | Preliminary injunction granted July 14, 2026, barring the Attorney General from enforcing SB 343 until further order. | verified July 21, 2026 |
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.
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 because no injunction was sought. California's program is unaffected by either challenge 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.
The decision to watch is Oregon. A ruling on the constitutionality of an EPR statute on a full evidentiary record is the first of its kind, and Judge Simon said he will issue it by the end of August 2026.
U.S. District Court, District of Oregon | 3:25-cv-01334 (Judge Michael H. Simon) | Filed 2025
What it means for you: If you were a NAW member on February 6, 2026, this injunction covers you while the case runs. Joining now does not get you in, because it is fixed to who was a member on that date. If you were not a member, and most producers were not, this case does not protect you: keep registering, reporting and paying. 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: Five-day bench trial held July 13 to 17, 2026. Post-trial briefs were due July 31, 2026 and motions for additional oral argument August 3, 2026. Judge Simon said from the bench that he had not decided how to rule and will issue a decision by the end of August 2026. The briefing is not symmetric: the court indicated the dormant Commerce Clause issues are fully briefed, and the six post-trial questions are weighted to procedural due process.
Who is affected: The February 6, 2026 preliminary injunction shields companies that were NAW members on that date and nobody else. Every other producer remains fully subject to registration, reporting, fees and DEQ enforcement.
Last confirmed: July 23, 2026.
U.S. District Court, District of Oregon | Docket number not publicly confirmed | 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 name you on its public non-compliance list. 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 in NAW.
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, with a joint status report due September 10, 2026. No class certification motion has been filed.
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.
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 was reported as expected in July 2026, but no public record of a hearing or ruling has surfaced.
Who is affected: No injunction was sought, so the Colorado program remains fully in effect for all covered producers.
Last confirmed: July 7, 2026. Denver District Court dockets are not freely accessible, so this status is carried forward rather than re-verified each week.
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California | Reported as No. 2:26-at-01047, a pre-assignment number | 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: Early. No response deadline, unsealing notice or preliminary injunction motion has been reported. The 2:26-at number is the district’s temporary pre-assignment placeholder for newly received filings and is not a sealing designation, a point widely misreported. The permanent civil docket number is not yet confirmed.
Who is affected: No relief has been granted. SB 54 obligations continue unchanged.
Last confirmed: July 10, 2026.
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.
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.
Every state guide carries the full fee schedule, registration deadlines, program plan status, eco-modulation detail, statute and rule text, and exemptions.