U.S. Packaging EPR Litigation Tracker

What the cases change for producers

In Oregon, companies that were members of the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors on February 6, 2026 are covered by a preliminary injunction, though the August 27, 2026 ruling upholding the law, and the August 28 judgment for DEQ, do not say what becomes of it, so members should not plan around it continuing, and companies that joined later are not covered.

A limited enforcement pause in Oregon also reached producers who are not NAW members, and on the public record it has run out. Under a stipulation the parties filed on July 16, 2026 in a second Oregon case (ECF 9, Exhibit 1; terms as summarized by Arnold and Porter, July 22, 2026), DEQ agreed not to issue pre-enforcement notices against Lollicup or any member of the putative class in that case until at least August 31, 2026. Nothing on the public docket extends it past that date, though the parties could extend it by written consent without filing anything. It never suspended producers' obligations. DEQ could still investigate you and still send warning letters. No class has been certified, so it rested 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. DEQ publishes the Producer Status List, and ORS 459A.869(8)(b) separately requires CAA to post the identity of non-compliant members on its website each quarter, but CAA's September 22, 2026 Oregon registry lists members and names no one as non-compliant. It was a narrow, temporary pause on one DEQ action.

In California, a federal court has preliminarily enjoined the Attorney General from enforcing SB 343, the recyclability labeling law, so the Attorney General cannot currently enforce the October 4, 2026 deadline. 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 it may also bear on your 2027 fee position, though CalRecycle says the injunction only blocks enforcement of SB 343.

Oregon won NAW v. Feldon on August 27, 2026. 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 summary of where the cases stand is 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. NAW appealed to the Ninth Circuit on September 24, 2026. Six remain live in the trial courts: 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. Two courts have granted relief, the Oregon court to NAW members as of February 6, 2026 and the California court against Attorney General enforcement of SB 343.

Court dockets are not uniformly accessible, and an entry whose docket is closed says so.

The wider picture

No court has enjoined a packaging EPR fee program as to producers generally. Oregon's preliminary injunction reached only companies that were NAW members on February 6, 2026, and no order since the August 28, 2026 judgment says whether it continues. Colorado's program is fully in effect: both cases now seek injunctions, NAW's, filed August 5, 2026 on the federal docket, and ILMA's, which ILMA says it filed August 18, 2026 in a state court whose docket is not public, and neither has been granted any relief. California's program is unaffected by its challenges so far.

The exception is SB 343. Attorney General enforcement of California's recyclability labeling law is paused, and because SB 54 borrows SB 343's recyclability criteria, the pause may raise questions about what will count as recyclable when California's per-category fees begin in 2027.

Oregon has now been decided in the district court, and NAW has appealed to the Ninth Circuit (No. 26-6404). 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 in the district court. On August 27, 2026 the court upheld the Recycling Modernization Act against both constitutional challenges, and NAW has appealed to the Ninth Circuit (No. 26-6404), which set Oregon's answering brief for January 18, 2027. 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, 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 before an order issues. A separate Oregon case, Lollicup v. Feldon, produced a limited pause on DEQ pre-enforcement notices that reached non-NAW producers through August 31, 2026, with nothing on the public docket extending it. It was much narrower than this injunction and it never suspended 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, and on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. 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 says what becomes of the February 6, 2026 preliminary injunction, and the opinion mentions it only in its procedural history. Final judgment was entered for the Director on August 28, 2026 (ECF 206), so the case is over in the district court. NAW filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on September 24, 2026 (ECF 209), inside the September 28 deadline under FRAP 4(a)(1)(A). The Ninth Circuit docketed the appeal on September 30, 2026 as No. 26-6404 and set the briefing schedule, with NAW’s opening brief due December 17, 2026 and Oregon’s answering brief due January 18, 2027. On the district court docket, accessed October 21, 2026, the other post-judgment entries are transcripts (ECF 207, 208, and 211), NAW's transcript designation (ECF 210, October 12), the September 30, 2026 entry recording the Ninth Circuit case number, and an October 16, 2026 entry (ECF 212), described in the docket text as a Motion for Stay Pending Appeal filed by NAW, with declarations from Ed Allen, Corey Rodriguez, and James E. Winkle. The docket shows no order on it, and the docket text does not say what NAW asks the court to stay. The Ninth Circuit docket, last updated on the free mirror October 21, 2026, shows no motion for a stay or for an injunction pending appeal through its newest entry, Dkt. 8 of October 14, 2026.

Who is affected: The February 6, 2026 preliminary injunction covered NAW and companies that were NAW members on that date and nobody else, and neither the August 27, 2026 decision nor the August 28 judgment says 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 subject to registration, reporting, fees, and DEQ enforcement. Another limit on the public record was the Lollicup stipulation, under which DEQ agreed not to issue pre-enforcement notices to Lollicup or its putative class until at least August 31, 2026 (terms as summarized by Arnold and Porter); an October 9, 2026 entry in that case (ECF 13) is labeled Stay with no text on the free docket (Lollicup docket accessed October 12, 2026).

Status as of: October 25, 2026. Dockets accessed on CourtListener October 25, 2026: the district court mirror last refreshed October 20, 2026 at 7:53 a.m. (newest entry ECF 212 of October 16, 2026), and the Ninth Circuit mirror for No. 26-6404 last refreshed October 21, 2026 at 1:29 p.m. (newest entry Dkt. 8 of October 14, 2026), so any filing after those times is not visible here.

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 case reaches Oregon producers outside the NAW injunction. Under a stipulation the parties filed July 16, 2026 (ECF 9, Exhibit 1; terms as summarized by Arnold and Porter, July 22, 2026), DEQ agreed not to issue pre-enforcement notices against members of the putative class, producers not covered by the NAW injunction, until at least August 31, 2026. That date has passed, and the public docket shows no order extending the pause (an October 9, 2026 entry, ECF 13, is labeled Stay, and its text is not on the free docket), so do not plan around it; the stipulation allowed extension by written consent, which need not be docketed, so whether the parties extended it privately is unknown. Your obligations were never suspended, so keep registering, reporting, and paying. DEQ could always investigate you and send warning letters. No class has been certified, so the pause rested 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. DEQ publishes the Producer Status List, and ORS 459A.869(8)(b) separately requires CAA to post the identity of non-compliant members on its website each quarter, but CAA's September 22, 2026 Oregon registry lists members and names no one as non-compliant.

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 the parties filed July 16, 2026 (ECF 9, Exhibit 1; terms as summarized by Arnold and Porter, July 22, 2026) paused Oregon DEQ pre-enforcement notices against Lollicup and putative class members until at least August 31, 2026; the public docket, accessed October 12, 2026, shows no order extending it, an October 9, 2026 entry (ECF 13) is labeled Stay with no text on the free mirror, and any written extension is unknown. 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. On September 10, 2026 the court granted the parties’ joint motion (ECF 11) and moved the joint status report to October 16, 2026 (ECF 12), so the parties can report after NAW’s September 28 appeal deadline. NAW noticed its appeal on September 24, 2026 (NAW v. Feldon, ECF 209). No class certification motion and no preliminary injunction motion has been filed.

Who is affected: The pause covered Oregon producers outside the NAW injunction, and only through August 31, 2026 on the public record. Obligations were never suspended: registration, reporting, and fees continue. DEQ kept authority to investigate, issue warning letters, and conduct other pre-enforcement activity. No class has been certified, so the protection rested on DEQ's agreement alone. And the Circular Action Alliance is not a party, so it may continue assessing fees, pursuing compliance actions, and flagging producers to DEQ under ORS 459A.869(10)(a).

Status as of: October 25, 2026. Docket accessed on CourtListener October 25, 2026; the mirror’s own last refresh was October 22, 2026 at 6:41 a.m., and the newest entries are ECF 13 of October 9, 2026, labeled Stay, and an unnumbered October 13, 2026 entry, labeled Scheduling, neither with docket text on the free mirror.

ILMA v. CDPHE

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

What it means for you: Nothing changes in Colorado today. ILMA says it has asked the court to pause the CAA and LPMA plan obligations for its own members only, not the program, and no ruling has been reported. Register, report, and pay on the usual schedule. If the court grants ILMA’s motion it would reach ILMA members and nobody else; if the case eventually succeeds on the merits it could change the program later, but there is nothing to wait for now.

What is challenged: CDPHE’s implementation of Colorado’s packaging EPR program, including its approval of the LPMA individual producer plan and the fees imposed on lubricant manufacturers, on statutory grounds, brought by the Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association (ILMA), whose August 18, 2026 release also raises due process and private-delegation concerns.

Where it stands: Preliminary injunction motion reported by the party; no ruling. ILMA states that on August 18, 2026 it filed a motion for a preliminary injunction asking the court to prohibit CDPHE from enforcing against ILMA members the mandatory contracting, reporting, and dues-paying obligations imposed through the CAA program plan and the LPMA individual producer plan, and that it is not asking the court to halt the whole program (ILMA, ILMA Seeks Preliminary Injunction Against Colorado EPR Enforcement, August 18, 2026, accessed September 27, 2026). CDPHE’s motion to dismiss, arguing the statutory claims are untimely under the 35-day judicial review window and that CAA and the Lubricants Packaging Management Association are necessary parties, was reported pending from June 2026. Denver District Court civil dockets are not public, so no hearing date, no ruling on either motion, and no filing by CDPHE is confirmed; every procedural fact here rests on a party statement or counsel reporting and is labeled signaled.

Who is affected: No one is covered by any relief yet, and the relief ILMA says it asked for would reach ILMA members only. Colorado’s program remains fully in effect for all covered producers, and the separate NAW v. Ryan suit has also moved for a preliminary injunction with no relief granted.

Status as of: September 27, 2026. Denver District Court dockets are not freely accessible, so this status is carried forward from party statements and counsel reporting rather than from a docket.

NAW v. Ryan

U.S. District Court, District of Colorado  |  No. 1:26-cv-03460 (PACER-derived docket mirror, accessed October 25, 2026)  |  Filed July 30, 2026

What it means for you: Nothing changes in Colorado today. NAW has asked the court for a preliminary injunction, and its complaint asks the court to bar enforcement of the Act against NAW members, but no ruling has issued. Keep registering, reporting, and paying 2026 dues on the normal schedule. If the court grants an injunction, its reach will depend on the terms of the order.

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. NAW raises five claims: that the Act delegates regulatory power to a private entity, CAA, in violation of Fourteenth Amendment due process; that it imposes an unconstitutional condition by requiring businesses that sell to Colorado consumers to sign an agreement with CAA giving up their rights to due process and a federal judicial forum, and to pay fees not even roughly proportional to their impacts; that it violates the Dormant Commerce Clause; that it violates the First Amendment by prohibiting businesses from charging Colorado customers a fee to recover their EPR costs; and that it compels producers to join CAA and fund its advocacy. NAW also argues the producer definition wrongly reaches many wholesale distributors that have no control over the selection, design, or manufacture of most product packaging.

Where it stands: NAW replied on September 28, 2026 (ECF 17), which completes the injunction briefing, and no ruling on the injunction motion appears on the docket as mirrored October 22, 2026. NAW moved for a preliminary injunction on August 5, 2026 (ECF 11, with seven affidavits), in a separate filing after the July 30 complaint, and the State filed its response on September 16, 2026 (ECF 15, with declarations and exhibits). The case is assigned to Judge Philip A. Brimmer, captioned 26-cv-03460-PAB, and referred to Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter for non-dispositive matters. The parties stipulated to extend Ryan’s time to answer or respond to October 13, 2026 (ECF 18), and on that date Ryan moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim (ECF 20); NAW filed the consent form on October 6, 2026 (ECF 19), stating “All parties do not consent,” and filed a proposed scheduling order on October 14, 2026 (ECF 21). On October 15, 2026 the Auto Care Association moved to intervene as a plaintiff (ECF 22), and the motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Neureiter on October 16 (ECF 23), the day the Association filed a corrected motion and a corrected proposed complaint in intervention (ECF 24). The court held a scheduling conference on October 21, 2026 and set oral argument on the motion to intervene for November 6, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. (ECF 25), and the magistrate judge’s scheduling order sets a telephonic status conference for January 13, 2027, discovery by March 22, 2027, dispositive motions by April 21, 2027, and a telephonic final pretrial conference for June 9, 2027 (ECF 26). On September 28, 2026 Eco-Cycle, Inc. moved for leave to file an amicus brief (ECF 16). Colorado now has two injunction requests pending: this one, on the federal docket, and the one ILMA says it filed in state court on August 18, 2026. CAA has said it is aware of the suit and is not a party; CDPHE has declined to comment.

Who is affected: No relief has been granted, so registration, reporting, and 2026 dues remain due for all covered producers in Colorado.

Status as of: October 25, 2026. Docket accessed on CourtListener October 25, 2026; the mirror’s own last refresh was October 22, 2026 at 9:33 a.m. (newest entry ECF 26, the scheduling order entered October 22, 2026), so any filing after that time is not visible here.

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: This court has paused nothing since the case was filed in June 2026, so SB 54 dates in California are unchanged.

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. NAW’s June 22, 2026 release also describes claims of compelled membership in CAA and of a delegation of fee-setting authority to a private organization without adequate legislative standards.

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, and the earlier 2:26-at-01047 was the court’s temporary case number for the new filing, used before the permanent number 2:26-cv-02214 issued. On October 23, 2026 Director Heller moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint without leave to amend (ECF 60), and the free docket lists three more October 23 filings (ECF 61 to 63) whose text it does not show.

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

Status as of: October 25, 2026. Docket accessed on CourtListener October 25, 2026; the mirror’s own last refresh was October 24, 2026 at 6:29 a.m., with filings through October 23 (ECF 60 to 63; only ECF 60, Director Heller’s motion to dismiss, is in RECAP). The January 15, 2027 hearing date and time are from the ECF 43 docket text.

NRDC v. Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery

San Francisco Superior Court, California  |  Reported as No. CPF-26-519769 by Farella Braun + Martel (September 17, 2026); not confirmed on the court docket  |  Filed June 2, 2026

What it means for you: Nothing changes today. These plaintiffs argue the SB 54 rules are too weak, so if they win, the likely result is tighter requirements on producers.

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 were reported to have 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. As of September 23, 2026, the petitioners’ own releases (NRDC and Oceana, June 4, 2026) remain their latest public statements on the case, and no later party statement, ruling, hearing date, or case number has been reported.

Who is affected: No relief granted. SB 54 now faces challenges from both directions at once, one arguing SB 54 itself is unconstitutional and one arguing the regulations do not go far enough.

Status as of: September 23, 2026. Petitioners’ sites accessed September 23, 2026; no public docket. Carried at signaled.

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: The Attorney General cannot enforce SB 343 right now, and the order does not say whether local jurisdictions, which also have enforcement authority under PRC 42358, are bound. 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 designing to the SB 343 rules remains the safer course. California also uses SB 343 criteria to decide what counts as recyclable for SB 54 fees, so this uncertainty reaches 2027 fee positions as well as artwork.

What is challenged: SB 343, the California recyclability labeling law, on First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment vagueness grounds. The First Amended Complaint (April 7, 2026) names 21 plaintiffs, including trade associations and six California commissions; the original complaint named 18, and the amendment added the California Retailers Association, Consumer Brands Association, and Personal Care Products Council.

Where it stands: Preliminary injunction granted July 14, 2026, barring the Attorney General from enforcing SB 343 until further order. Four provisions were found likely unconstitutionally vague and severable, so the 60 percent collection-and-sorting threshold survives on paper while enforcement is paused. No notice of appeal appears on the docket as mirrored October 20, 2026. Bonta answered the First Amended Complaint on August 13, 2026 (ECF 26). On September 28, 2026 the court denied the Earth Island Institute and Californians Against Waste motion to intervene as defendants (ECF 34, 16 pages). It found the motion timely and found a significant protectable interest, but held that the proposed intervenors did not rebut the presumption that the government defendant adequately represents them, and it denied permissive intervention because their interests are adequately represented and adding parties at this stage would risk complicating and prolonging the case. The order states that the two groups "may request leave to file a joint amicus brief at appropriate stages of this action." On August 25, 2026 the court set the joint discovery plan for October 19, 2026 and the early neutral evaluation and case management conference for October 28, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. (ECF 31); the parties’ joint motion to continue (ECF 32, September 22, 2026) was granted on September 23, 2026 (ECF 33), which set the joint discovery plan for October 26, 2026 and the early neutral evaluation and case management conference for November 4, 2026 at 1:30 p.m.; the plaintiffs’ October 8, 2026 motion (ECF 35) states that ECF 33 also set the Rule 26(f) conference for October 14 and initial disclosures for October 28. In that motion the plaintiffs asked for leave to file a second amended complaint adding claims that provisions of SB 54 are unconstitutionally vague, deny due process and equal protection, restrict speech about how SB 54 fees are shown on receipts or invoices, and let a private entity set eco-modulated fees without sufficient government review, and adding CalRecycle Director Zoe Heller and CDTFA Director Trista Gonzalez as defendants; the plaintiffs noticed the motion for November 9, 2026, with no oral argument unless the court requests it. On October 20, 2026 the docket added ECF 36, labeled Continue, and on October 23, 2026 an order on a motion to continue (ECF 37), neither with text on the free docket, so whether the October 26, October 28, and November 4 dates still stand is not known.

Who is affected: The October 4, 2026 compliance date passed with Attorney General enforcement barred by the July 14, 2026 preliminary injunction, which runs until further order of the court. 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.

Status as of: October 25, 2026. Docket accessed on CourtListener October 25, 2026; the mirror’s own last refresh was October 23, 2026 at 3:40 p.m. (newest entry ECF 37 of October 23, 2026, labeled Order on Motion to Continue, with no docket text on the free mirror), so any filing after that time is not visible here.

Frequently asked questions