Oregon Federal Court Upholds Packaging EPR Law: Active EPR Compliance Obligations
On August 27, 2026, an Oregon federal district court ruled in National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors v. Feldon, No. 3:25-cv-01334 (D. Or.), that Oregon’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act does not violate the US Constitution’s dormant Commerce Clause or Due Process Clause. The ruling lifts the preliminary injunction that had barred enforcement against National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors members. An appeal to the Ninth Circuit is likely, but absent a new injunction pending appeal, enforcement can proceed unimpeded.
This decision lands amid a rapidly maturing multistate landscape. Seven states have enacted packaging-related Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws—Colorado, Oregon, California, Maryland, Minnesota, Washington, and Maine—though Maine’s program remains nonoperational after its Stewardship Organization selection process failed in August 2026. In the other six, active compliance obligations already apply to producers of covered packaging and products (paper products in all but California; food-service ware in California and Oregon), generally requiring registration with a Producer Responsibility Organization (Circular Action Alliance in every operational state) and/or the relevant state agency, reporting, and fee payment. Colorado’s, Oregon’s, and California’s programs are furthest along, with several reports already due and fees already assessed.
Sales prohibitions for failure to register and/or participate in an approved program plan are a particular risk. For example, Colorado’s took effect July 1, 2025 (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-17-708); Maryland’s regulations, effective May 25, 2026, likewise impose a sales prohibition (COMAR 26.04.14.06.C); and California’s takes effect no later than January 1, 2027 (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 42051(b)(1)). In Oregon, the state may seek a court-ordered sales prohibition against a noncompliant producer (ORS 459A.962(6)).
Enforcement mechanics vary meaningfully by state. Circular Action Alliance itself has no enforcement authority; under its Producer Delinquency Policy, it refers unresolved delinquencies to state regulators three months after notice. From there, maximum statutory penalties range widely—up to $50,000 per day in California—and cure periods, where they exist, range from roughly 30 to 60 days. Producers are not the only parties at risk: in Washington, for example, sellers and distributors found to be selling or distributing a noncompliant producer’s covered materials can themselves face enforcement action and penalties (RCW 70A.208.230(3)(b)).
States may also increasingly make noncompliance public. Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality maintains a quarterly Producer Status List of noncompliant producers, with the first list published April 9, 2026. CalRecycle is likewise required to post and update, every six months, a list of covered material categories, by producer, that are out of compliance (PRC § 42082(a))—though no such list has been published by CalRecycle to date.
Any brand owner, manufacturer, or distributor selling into these states should confirm (1) whether it is considered the producer responsible for compliance—a determination that can turn on brand ownership, manufacturing role, or which party ships the final product; (2) whether its packaging or products are covered; and (3) whether an exemption applies (several states, for example, exempt qualifying business-to-business transactions).
We advise clients across each of these seven states on producer-status and packaging/product-coverage determinations, exemption eligibility, compliance options, and enforcement exposure, including companies with complex, multichannel distribution models. Please contact us if you’d like assistance evaluating your obligations.
This decision lands amid a rapidly maturing multistate landscape. Seven states have enacted packaging-related Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws—Colorado, Oregon, California, Maryland, Minnesota, Washington, and Maine—though Maine’s program remains nonoperational after its Stewardship Organization selection process failed in August 2026. In the other six, active compliance obligations already apply to producers of covered packaging and products (paper products in all but California; food-service ware in California and Oregon), generally requiring registration with a Producer Responsibility Organization (Circular Action Alliance in every operational state) and/or the relevant state agency, reporting, and fee payment. Colorado’s, Oregon’s, and California’s programs are furthest along, with several reports already due and fees already assessed.
Sales prohibitions for failure to register and/or participate in an approved program plan are a particular risk. For example, Colorado’s took effect July 1, 2025 (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-17-708); Maryland’s regulations, effective May 25, 2026, likewise impose a sales prohibition (COMAR 26.04.14.06.C); and California’s takes effect no later than January 1, 2027 (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 42051(b)(1)). In Oregon, the state may seek a court-ordered sales prohibition against a noncompliant producer (ORS 459A.962(6)).
Enforcement mechanics vary meaningfully by state. Circular Action Alliance itself has no enforcement authority; under its Producer Delinquency Policy, it refers unresolved delinquencies to state regulators three months after notice. From there, maximum statutory penalties range widely—up to $50,000 per day in California—and cure periods, where they exist, range from roughly 30 to 60 days. Producers are not the only parties at risk: in Washington, for example, sellers and distributors found to be selling or distributing a noncompliant producer’s covered materials can themselves face enforcement action and penalties (RCW 70A.208.230(3)(b)).
States may also increasingly make noncompliance public. Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality maintains a quarterly Producer Status List of noncompliant producers, with the first list published April 9, 2026. CalRecycle is likewise required to post and update, every six months, a list of covered material categories, by producer, that are out of compliance (PRC § 42082(a))—though no such list has been published by CalRecycle to date.
Any brand owner, manufacturer, or distributor selling into these states should confirm (1) whether it is considered the producer responsible for compliance—a determination that can turn on brand ownership, manufacturing role, or which party ships the final product; (2) whether its packaging or products are covered; and (3) whether an exemption applies (several states, for example, exempt qualifying business-to-business transactions).
We advise clients across each of these seven states on producer-status and packaging/product-coverage determinations, exemption eligibility, compliance options, and enforcement exposure, including companies with complex, multichannel distribution models. Please contact us if you’d like assistance evaluating your obligations.
Related Lawyers
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
On August 27, 2026, an Oregon federal district court ruled in National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors v. Feldon, No. 3:25-cv-01334 (D. Or.), that Oregon’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act does not violate the US Constitution’s dormant Commerce Clause or Due Process Clause. The ruling lifts the preliminary injunction that had barred enforcement against National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors members. An appeal to the Ninth Circuit is likely, but absent a new injunction pending appeal, enforcement can proceed unimpeded.
This decision lands amid a rapidly maturing multistate landscape. Seven states have enacted packaging-related Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws—Colorado, Oregon, California, Maryland, Minnesota, Washington, and Maine—though Maine’s program remains nonoperational after its Stewardship Organization selection process failed in August 2026. In the other six, active compliance obligations already apply to producers of covered packaging and products (paper products in all but California; food-service ware in California and Oregon), generally requiring registration with a Producer Responsibility Organization (Circular Action Alliance in every operational state) and/or the relevant state agency, reporting, and fee payment. Colorado’s, Oregon’s, and California’s programs are furthest along, with several reports already due and fees already assessed.
Sales prohibitions for failure to register and/or participate in an approved program plan are a particular risk. For example, Colorado’s took effect July 1, 2025 (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-17-708); Maryland’s regulations, effective May 25, 2026, likewise impose a sales prohibition (COMAR 26.04.14.06.C); and California’s takes effect no later than January 1, 2027 (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 42051(b)(1)). In Oregon, the state may seek a court-ordered sales prohibition against a noncompliant producer (ORS 459A.962(6)).
Enforcement mechanics vary meaningfully by state. Circular Action Alliance itself has no enforcement authority; under its Producer Delinquency Policy, it refers unresolved delinquencies to state regulators three months after notice. From there, maximum statutory penalties range widely—up to $50,000 per day in California—and cure periods, where they exist, range from roughly 30 to 60 days. Producers are not the only parties at risk: in Washington, for example, sellers and distributors found to be selling or distributing a noncompliant producer’s covered materials can themselves face enforcement action and penalties (RCW 70A.208.230(3)(b)).
States may also increasingly make noncompliance public. Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality maintains a quarterly Producer Status List of noncompliant producers, with the first list published April 9, 2026. CalRecycle is likewise required to post and update, every six months, a list of covered material categories, by producer, that are out of compliance (PRC § 42082(a))—though no such list has been published by CalRecycle to date.
Any brand owner, manufacturer, or distributor selling into these states should confirm (1) whether it is considered the producer responsible for compliance—a determination that can turn on brand ownership, manufacturing role, or which party ships the final product; (2) whether its packaging or products are covered; and (3) whether an exemption applies (several states, for example, exempt qualifying business-to-business transactions).
We advise clients across each of these seven states on producer-status and packaging/product-coverage determinations, exemption eligibility, compliance options, and enforcement exposure, including companies with complex, multichannel distribution models. Please contact us if you’d like assistance evaluating your obligations.
This decision lands amid a rapidly maturing multistate landscape. Seven states have enacted packaging-related Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws—Colorado, Oregon, California, Maryland, Minnesota, Washington, and Maine—though Maine’s program remains nonoperational after its Stewardship Organization selection process failed in August 2026. In the other six, active compliance obligations already apply to producers of covered packaging and products (paper products in all but California; food-service ware in California and Oregon), generally requiring registration with a Producer Responsibility Organization (Circular Action Alliance in every operational state) and/or the relevant state agency, reporting, and fee payment. Colorado’s, Oregon’s, and California’s programs are furthest along, with several reports already due and fees already assessed.
Sales prohibitions for failure to register and/or participate in an approved program plan are a particular risk. For example, Colorado’s took effect July 1, 2025 (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-17-708); Maryland’s regulations, effective May 25, 2026, likewise impose a sales prohibition (COMAR 26.04.14.06.C); and California’s takes effect no later than January 1, 2027 (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 42051(b)(1)). In Oregon, the state may seek a court-ordered sales prohibition against a noncompliant producer (ORS 459A.962(6)).
Enforcement mechanics vary meaningfully by state. Circular Action Alliance itself has no enforcement authority; under its Producer Delinquency Policy, it refers unresolved delinquencies to state regulators three months after notice. From there, maximum statutory penalties range widely—up to $50,000 per day in California—and cure periods, where they exist, range from roughly 30 to 60 days. Producers are not the only parties at risk: in Washington, for example, sellers and distributors found to be selling or distributing a noncompliant producer’s covered materials can themselves face enforcement action and penalties (RCW 70A.208.230(3)(b)).
States may also increasingly make noncompliance public. Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality maintains a quarterly Producer Status List of noncompliant producers, with the first list published April 9, 2026. CalRecycle is likewise required to post and update, every six months, a list of covered material categories, by producer, that are out of compliance (PRC § 42082(a))—though no such list has been published by CalRecycle to date.
Any brand owner, manufacturer, or distributor selling into these states should confirm (1) whether it is considered the producer responsible for compliance—a determination that can turn on brand ownership, manufacturing role, or which party ships the final product; (2) whether its packaging or products are covered; and (3) whether an exemption applies (several states, for example, exempt qualifying business-to-business transactions).
We advise clients across each of these seven states on producer-status and packaging/product-coverage determinations, exemption eligibility, compliance options, and enforcement exposure, including companies with complex, multichannel distribution models. Please contact us if you’d like assistance evaluating your obligations.
Related Lawyers
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
News and Insights
Event
Associate Steven Arango to Speak at the Veterans' Legal Career Fair
On September 18, Associate Steven Arango will speak on a panel at the Veterans' Legal Career Fair (VLCF), the only legal career fair in the United States dedicated to veterans, active-duty service members, and military spouses.
September 18, 2026
Publications
Partner Lucy Blake Discusses the FCA's New Non-Financial Misconduct Regime in Law360
Partner Lucy Blake spoke with Law360 for an article examining the Financial Conduct Authority's new non-financial misconduct rules, which took effect this week and extend existing banking-sector conduct standards to roughly 37,000 non-banking financial businesses.
September 2, 2026
Publications
In American Banker, Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon Weighs in on OCC's Handling of Fintech Bank Charter Applications
Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon spoke with American Banker about how the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is approaching bank charter applications from fintechs, amid a growing wave of companies seeking charters from federal regulators.
August 18, 2026
Event
Partner David Greenwald to Speak at PLI Program on Privilege and AI
On August 17, David Greenwald will speak at "Fitting New “Tech” Into the Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Protection," a virtual program hosted by the Practising Law Institute (PLI).
August 17, 2026