accountability problem with EPR,” Brian Wild, chief government affairs officer for NAW, said. “Oregon has delegated enormous authority to the Circular Action Alliance, a private organization that sets fees using a confidential methodology producers cannot review or verify, and that Oregon itself acknowledged it neither recreated nor needed to use because it could administer the program on its own.” The original NAW case established the core constitutional arguments against EPR, and now other organizations are using that as a basis for their own lawsuits. One such challenge came in June 2026 when a Texas-based food serviceware manufacturer, Lollicup USA, filed a class-action lawsuit against Oregon. The case contends that the RMA violates the U.S. Constitution’s Dormant Commerce Clause by placing burdens on interstate commerce that are clearly excessive relative


What is Covered? Packaging Food Service Paper Products


California Colorado Maine


Maryland Minnesota Oregon


Washington


• •


• - - • • • • • • • • • • • •


• •


B2B Packaging is Reportable


California X Colorado Maine


Maryland Minnesota


Oregon X2 Washington


1


Plastic Only


• -


Printing & Writing


Consumer Packaging is Reportable


X


X1 X X X


(except rigid pallets) X X


Note: In Colorado, packaging is only in scope if it is sold or distributed to a covered entity.


• Single or multifamily residence.


• Public places, small businesses, schools, hospitality locations, or state and local government buildings.


2


Oregon does include some B2B packaging, but rigid pallets, specialty packaging items used exclusively in industrial or manufacturing processes, and pallet wrap used to secure a palletized load if added by a person that is not the producer of the palletized covered products are all exempt.


Source: Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 14 FEDA News & Views


to its local benefits. It discriminates against out-of-state producers, Lollicup USA v. Feldon claims, by effectively creating an impermissible tariff on goods entering Oregon. While the companies covered by the injunction for the original NAW lawsuit were limited to NAW members, Lollicup seeks to bar EPR enforcement against all producers.


Since the initial lawsuit against Oregon, NAW has filed


two more challenges against other states’ packaging EPR laws. The first came in June 2026 when the association joined a 17-state coalition to challenge California’s version of the legislation. California’s Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act was signed into law in 2022 but did not go into effect until May 1, 2026. As in Oregon, the law requires businesses to register with and pay fees to CAA. A notable difference in this case, Nebraska v. Heller, is that the effort is being led by state attorneys general rather than NAW or another business group. Those states maintain that California is treating businesses in their jurisdictions unfairly by forcing them to pay EPR fees to enter the state’s market. “California cannot reach across state lines and force businesses in Nebraska, or any other state, to adopt California’s preferred environmental policies,” Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers said in a statement. “California does not get to set national policy. Nebraska is leading this coalition because the constitutional problem here belongs to every state.” In mid-August, NAW and the 17-state coalition filed a


request for a preliminary injunction in the California case, seeking similar injunctive relief as was granted in the Oregon lawsuit.


The latest challenge to packaging EPR is centered on Colorado. On July 30, 2025, NAW filed a lawsuit, NAW v. Ryan, on similar grounds to the other lawsuits: that Colorado is delegating its fee-setting authority to CAA without adequate standards or oversight, and that it is compelling businesses to join and financially support the privately owned organization.


“While each state law has its own idiosyncratic


differences, our overarching challenge remains the same,” NAW President and CEO Eric Hoplin said. “No state should limit interstate commerce, nor should they delegate power to set and collect fees to a third party outside the scope of public scrutiny.”


Further bolstering the fight against Colorado EPR law is a lawsuit filed by the Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association (ILMA) in Colorado state court. The lawsuit follows a similar blueprint to NAW’s case in Oregon and will serve as a test of whether those constitutional arguments can succeed in other jurisdictions.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60