On August 27, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon upheld the state’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (RMA), rejecting claims that the law’s extended producer responsibility (EPR) program is unconstitutional. The ruling followed a five-day trial in July over a legal challenge brought by the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW).
The decision marks an important test for EPR laws nationwide, as it is the first federal court decision to fully address a constitutional challenge to a state EPR program. Earlier this year, the court issued a preliminary injunction preventing Oregon from enforcing the law against NAW members while the case proceeded. The final ruling ultimately sided with the state, allowing implementation and enforcement of the program to continue.
NAW challenged Oregon’s EPR law on several constitutional grounds. At trial, the case centered on two main arguments: that the program placed an excessive burden on interstate commerce and that it gave too much authority to the Circular Action Alliance (CAA), the private producer responsibility organization administering the program. NAW also argued that producers did not have adequate ways to challenge the fees assessed by CAA. The court rejected these arguments, finding that NAW had not demonstrated an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce, and that Oregon maintained sufficient oversight of CAA and provided producers with adequate processes to address fee disputes.
What Does This Mean for the Printing Industry?
Oregon’s EPR program has various implications for the printing and packaging industry because it covers not only packaging but also printer paper. The law specifically identifies products such as newspapers, magazines, flyers, brochures, booklets, and catalogs as covered materials. This does not mean a printer or converter is not automatically considered the producer. Responsibility depends on the product and how it enters the Oregon market and may fall on the publisher, manufacturer, brand owner, importer, or another party in the supply chain. Printers and converters should also be aware that packaging sold or supplied to another business can be covered under Oregon’s program, meaning some companies that primarily serve business customers may still have EPR obligations.
However, even when printers are not directly responsible for EPR compliance, customers may increasingly rely on them for information about substrates, material weights, recyclability, and other product characteristics needed to meet reporting and compliance requirements. This makes accurate material and production data increasingly important across the print supply chain.
The Oregon decision does not resolve every legal question surrounding EPR. NAW has characterized the ruling as specific to Oregon's law and has indicated that further action is pending. Legal challenges are also underway against EPR programs in California and Colorado.
However, the ruling sends an important signal: companies should not assume that ongoing litigation will stop the expansion or implementation of EPR requirements.
For the printing industry, the practical message remains the same. Understand where your company sits in the producer hierarchy, determine whether the materials you manufacture or distribute are covered, and be prepared to provide customers with increasingly detailed material data. As EPR programs continue to develop across the country, these capabilities will become an increasingly important part of doing business.
In this article, Sara Osorio, Manager, EHS & Sustainability, PRINTING United Alliance, discusses the ruling for the Oregon EPR Lawsuit. More information on sustainability can be found at Business Excellence-EHS Affairs, or reach out to Sara directly if you have questions about how these issues may affect your business: sosorio@printing.org.
To become a member of the Alliance and learn more about how our subject matter experts can assist your company with services and resources such as those mentioned in this article, please contact the Alliance membership team: 888-385-3588 / membership@printing.org.
Our editorial content is edited and approved by humans. While staff may use AI tools in the brainstorming or research stage to generate ideas, provide background context, or suggest phrasing, humans always verify facts, evaluate context, and make final decisions. We may also use AI to enhance user experiences (e.g., creating summaries or SEO suggestions), but any such output is reviewed by humans and, when appropriate, labeled as AI-assisted.