EPR on Trial: Where the US and EU Packaging Lawsuits Stand
An Oregon judge has heard five days of evidence on whether packaging EPR is constitutional. Seventeen states are suing California. A federal court has frozen the chasing arrows law. Eleven companies are asking Luxembourg to annul the PPWR. Here is what each case is, and what none of it excuses you from.
By Kevin Kai Wong, Managing Partner at gCurv Technologies
Published: August 25, 2026 | Updated: August 25, 2026
Table of Contents
- 1.The short version
- 2.Oregon: the bellwether that has already been tried
- 3.California SB 54: seventeen states and a trade group
- 4.California SB 343: the one injunction that changes labels
- 5.Colorado: the third front
- 6.The four theories being tested
- 7.PPWR: eleven annulment actions in Luxembourg
- 8.What none of this changes for your filings
- 9.What to actually do this quarter
- 10.Questions we keep getting
The short version
Packaging EPR spent five years being a policy story. In 2026 it became a docket. Every major US program is now either in litigation or downstream of a case that will shape it, and the EU regulation is facing a stack of annulment actions in Luxembourg. That has produced a lot of internal emails asking a reasonable question: do we still have to do this?
Yes. As of 25 August 2026, no court has invalidated a packaging EPR statute. The relief that exists is preliminary and narrow, and in two of the three US programs under challenge it does not exist at all. What follows is the state of play, case by case, with the operational consequence attached to each.
| Program | Matter | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Oregon | NAW v. Feldon, No. 3:25-cv-01334D. Or., Judge Michael H. SimonPreliminary injunction for NAW members since 6 February 2026. Bench trial concluded 17 July 2026, decision pending. | Partial relief |
| California, SB 54 | Nebraska et al. v. Heller et al.E.D. Cal.Filed 22 June 2026 by 17 state attorneys general with NAW as the only business plaintiff. No injunction. Obligations continue. | Pending |
| California, SB 343 | California League of Food Producers v. Bonta, No. 3:26-cv-01675S.D. Cal., Judge William Q. HayesPreliminary injunction 14 July 2026 on vagueness and First Amendment grounds. Labeling enforcement paused, SB 54 untouched. | Partial relief |
| Colorado | NAW v. Ryan; separate ILMA state court actionD. Colo. and Colorado state courtFederal complaint filed 30 July 2026, preliminary injunction motion 5 August 2026, response due 16 September 2026. | Pending |
| Minnesota, Maryland, Washington, Maine | None reportedn/aNo litigation challenging these packaging EPR statutes had been reported as of 18 August 2026. | No reported case |
Oregon: the bellwether that has already been tried
Oregon's Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act was the first packaging EPR law in the country, so it is also the first to be tested at trial. The National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors sued the Department of Environmental Quality in July 2025. The case is National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors v. Feldon, No. 3:25-cv-01334, before Judge Michael H. Simon in the District of Oregon.
On 6 February 2026 the court issued a short but consequential order. It dismissed the claims against the Environmental Quality Commission members, the Oregon constitutional claims, the unconstitutional conditions claim and the equal protection claim, all without prejudice. It let the dormant Commerce Clause and Fourteenth Amendment due process claims proceed. And it granted a preliminary injunction barring the DEQ director from enforcing the RMA against NAW and its members, finding serious questions on the merits and a balance of hardships tipping sharply toward the plaintiff.
Read that relief precisely. It runs to one trade association and its members, not to producers generally. Nothing about it suspends the statute or excuses a non-member from registering.
A five-day bench trial ran the week of 13 July 2026 and concluded on 17 July after roughly 34 hours of testimony from industry witnesses, DEQ staff and experts on both sides. The evidence focused on the burden of identifying responsible producers, collecting and reporting packaging data, and assessing fees after goods have already moved through the supply chain, plus the relationship between DEQ and the Circular Action Alliance and how much supervision the agency actually exercises over the PRO. Part of the proceeding was closed to the public for testimony about the confidential appendix to CAA's program plan.
Post-trial briefs were filed on 31 July 2026. Rather than hold argument, the court asked for supplemental briefing on one narrow question: whether the RMA's exemption for certain Oregon public bodies that qualify as small producers is facially discriminatory under the dormant Commerce Clause. Briefing closed on 10 August. Judge Simon told the parties from the bench that he intends to rule by the end of August, and as of publication no decision had issued.
The narrowness of that supplemental question is the most informative signal available. A court preparing to dismantle an entire regulatory architecture does not usually spend its last round of briefing on a single statutory exemption. That is a read, not a prediction, and the same theories are already pending in two other courts.
California SB 54: seventeen states and a trade group
On 22 June 2026 a coalition of 17 state attorneys general led by Nebraska filed State of Nebraska et al. v. Heller et al. in the US District Court for the Eastern District of California, with NAW joining as the only business plaintiff. Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and West Virginia joined Nebraska.
The complaint's framing is extraterritorial rather than environmental. It argues California is imposing its policy preferences on the rest of the country and that the costs land on consumers in states that never voted for the program. Legally it leans on the Commerce Clause and on the delegation of fee setting to a private organization, with particular attention to the fact that the methodology is treated as confidential and that disputes over assessments run through arbitration administered by the PRO rather than through a court. Coverage of the filing is available from the Associated Press.
Pressure is arriving from the other direction too. Environmental groups sued California in June 2026 arguing the opposite case, that the final regulations are too weak and contain loopholes. Both suits can be true as a matter of litigation risk: the rules can be simultaneously attacked as too aggressive and defended as too lenient, and the producer in the middle still has to file.
No injunction has issued against SB 54. If you are in scope, the SB 54 obligations stand.
California SB 343: the one injunction that changes labels
SB 343, the truth in recycling law, restricts when a product or its packaging may be labeled recyclable or carry the chasing arrows symbol in California. A claim is generally permitted only where the material meets statewide recyclability criteria, including the collection and processing thresholds widely known as the 60/60 requirement, and the burden of proving that sits with the manufacturer. CalRecycle's material characterization report in April 2025 started an 18-month clock that produced a 4 October 2026 compliance date.
That date is now on hold. On 14 July 2026 the US District Court for the Southern District of California issued a preliminary injunction in California League of Food Producers v. Bonta, No. 3:26-cv-01675, barring the Attorney General from enforcing the statute pending further proceedings. Judge William Q. Hayes found the industry plaintiffs likely to succeed both on a Fourteenth Amendment vagueness theory and on a First Amendment commercial speech theory. Analyses are available from Norton Rose Fulbright and Morgan Lewis.
Three qualifications matter more than the headline. The order is preliminary, so the merits are still open and an appeal is possible. It restrains the Attorney General, and other parties could still attempt claims under the statute, though such claims would meet the same constitutional arguments. And it is about labeling. It does not touch SB 54 registration, reporting or fees.
The practical risk here is a design team treating the pause as a reversal. If you have already redesigned labels to drop unsupported claims, that work was worth doing on consumer protection grounds alone and should stay. What the injunction buys you is time on the artwork you had not yet changed, not permission to put the symbol back.
Colorado: the third front
NAW opened a third front on 30 July 2026 with a federal complaint in Colorado, National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors v. Ryan, naming the executive director of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment in her official capacity and targeting the Producer Responsibility Program for Statewide Recycling Act, HB 22-1355. A motion for preliminary injunction followed on 5 August 2026, seeking to bar enforcement and defer members' payment obligations, with the defendant's response due 16 September 2026. Arnold and Porter has a useful comparison of the claims across the three states.
Colorado also has a separate state court case. The Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association brought state law and constitutional challenges to the program in March 2026. Two cases, two courts, one program.
As of Steptoe's litigation landscape update of 18 August 2026, no litigation had been reported against the packaging EPR statutes of Minnesota, Maryland, Washington or Maine. That is worth stating plainly, because a general sense that EPR is under legal siege tends to leak into states where nothing is actually contested. Our state by state tracker reflects the same picture.
The four theories being tested
Strip away the state specifics and the same four arguments recur. Knowing them helps you read the next ruling without waiting for a summary.
Dormant Commerce Clause
That a state program regulates conduct and imposes costs largely outside its borders, or discriminates in favor of in-state actors. In Oregon the court's final question was whether an exemption for certain Oregon public bodies is facially discriminatory.
Due process and vagueness
That producers cannot tell in advance what is required or what a fee will be. This is where fee methodology confidentiality and the difficulty of identifying the responsible producer do their work.
Private delegation
That handing fee setting, collection and dispute resolution to a producer responsibility organization gives governmental power to a private body without adequate state supervision. The degree of agency oversight of the PRO is the pivot.
First Amendment
Specific to labeling. Restricting a recyclability claim regulates commercial speech, which the state must justify. This is the theory that produced the only injunction reaching a compliance deadline so far.
PPWR: eleven annulment actions in Luxembourg
Europe's version of this fight looks nothing like the American one. There is no preliminary injunction culture and no Commerce Clause. Instead, in April 2025 a set of packaging manufacturers and suppliers filed actions for annulment against Regulation (EU) 2025/40 before the General Court. Several were published in the Official Journal in June 2025, and the Council circulated a list of the cases to member state parliaments.
| Case | Applicant |
|---|---|
| T-236/25 | Raficon Trade v Parliament and Council |
| T-237/25 | Fleggard and Others v Parliament and Council |
| T-239/25 | Belfort International v Parliament and Council |
| T-241/25 | Schütz and Others v Parliament and Council |
| T-242/25 | Saier v Parliament and Council |
| T-243/25 | Silver Plastics v Parliament and Council |
| T-244/25 | ILIP v Parliament and Council |
| T-247/25 | Ecoplastica v Parliament and Council |
| T-248/25 | Dynaplast and Others v Parliament and Council |
| T-249/25 | Jokey and Others v Parliament and Council |
Two of the applications show the shape of the argument. ILIP (T-244/25) asks the Court to annul the PPWR in its entirety and, in the alternative, Article 25 and Annex V, which prohibit certain single-use plastic packaging formats and use cases. Its four pleas are an incorrect legal basis, on the argument that the legislature used the internal market basis in Article 114 TFEU when the measure is environmental and belongs under Article 192; a breach of equal treatment, because suppliers of single-use plastic are treated differently from suppliers of other materials for the same uses; a failure to state reasons under Article 296(2) TFEU; and a breach of proportionality.
Schütz and Others (T-241/25), brought by Schütz GmbH and seven co-applicants, follows the same legal basis argument but aims at Article 29 and its reuse targets, including their application to intermediate bulk containers.
For a compliance team the important point is procedural, not substantive. Under Article 278 TFEU an action before the Court does not have suspensory effect. The PPWR applies regardless of these cases unless and until the Court says otherwise, and annulment proceedings at the General Court typically run for years. Direct challenges by private applicants also face a demanding admissibility test under Article 263(4) TFEU, which has to be cleared before the substantive pleas are ever reached. Nothing here moves the dates on our compliance calendar.
What none of this changes for your filings
The single most expensive mistake available right now is treating litigation as a deferral. Four things are true simultaneously.
A lawsuit does not suspend a statute. Several of these cases have been running for more than a year while the programs registered producers, collected data and invoiced fees on schedule. Relief so far is party-specific: the Oregon injunction protects one association's members, and the California injunction restrains one official from enforcing one labeling law. A PRO is not bound by an injunction that names a state agency, so invoices, chasers and public non-compliance listings continue on their own track. And a favorable ruling would very likely be appealed, which means a period of uncertainty rather than a clean stop.
There is also a quieter consequence for California. Recyclability determinations and labeling rules are entangled in that state, so a pause on the labeling side introduces real uncertainty into how recyclability is characterized for other purposes. That is an argument for keeping your evidence current, not for letting it lapse.
What to actually do this quarter
Register and file everywhere you are in scope, on the published dates, without exception. Confirm in writing whether any injunction actually covers your legal entity rather than assuming trade association membership does it, because the Oregon relief turned on membership at a specific point in time. Keep SB 343 substantiation records alive even though enforcement is paused, since a preliminary ruling is not a repeal. Model your fee exposure under both outcomes for Oregon, Colorado and California so a ruling in either direction is a budget adjustment rather than a fire drill. And keep the underlying supplier evidence in usable shape, because every one of these cases turns partly on how hard it is to know what your packaging actually is.
The programs that survive these challenges will demand better data, not less of it. The ones that get sent back for revision will be rebuilt with more transparency in fee setting, which also means more scrutiny of what producers submit. Both roads end in the same place for you.
Questions we keep getting
Can I pause registration while the cases run?
No. A filed lawsuit does not suspend a statute, and none of the pending cases has produced general relief. Every state with an active program still expects registration, reporting and payment on schedule.
If the Oregon plaintiffs win, do fees stop everywhere?
Unlikely in the short term. A district court ruling binds the parties before that court. It would carry persuasive weight in Colorado and California and would probably be appealed, but it would not automatically void other states' statutes.
Should we still prepare for the October 4, 2026 California labeling date?
Yes. The injunction is preliminary, the statute is still on the books, and the state can appeal or prevail on the merits. Keep the substantiation records and hold the design changes ready rather than reversing them.
Does the PPWR litigation delay the 2030 requirements?
There is no indication that it does. Actions for annulment do not have suspensory effect, and the applicants would need interim measures for anything else. Plan against the regulation as adopted.
If you want the dates, registrations and fee exposure for every jurisdiction you sell into held in one place while this plays out, .
Sources
Order of 6 February 2026, NAW v. Feldon, No. 3:25-cv-01334 (D. Or.), ECF 88. Tonkon Torp, post-trial briefing alert, 21 July 2026. National Law Review, supplemental briefing order. Resource Recycling, Oregon EPR ruling looms, 17 August 2026. NAW, announcement of the California filing, 22 June 2026. Associated Press, 17 states and trade group sue California. Norton Rose Fulbright, SB 343 injunction analysis. Morgan Lewis, court blocks SB 343 enforcement. Arnold and Porter, Colorado complaint analysis. Steptoe, EPR litigation landscape update, 18 August 2026. EUR-Lex, ILIP v Parliament and Council (T-244/25) and Schütz and Others (T-241/25). Educational only, not legal advice. Case posture changes quickly, so confirm the current status with counsel before acting.