Court upholds Oregon's packaging law as more states consider similar recycling rules

Oregon’s measure is just one version of extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws that are proliferating across the county. It’s one of seven states to have enacted such regulations on packaging. Other states, including Illinois, Massachusetts, Nebraska and New York, introduced bills during the 2026 legislative session.

The National Association of Wholesalers-Distributors said it isn’t giving up.

“The district court’s ruling is not the final word,” the organization said in a statement. “NAW remains committed to challenging these unconstitutional laws and protecting businesses from regulatory schemes that impose mandatory costs without adequate accountability or meaningful recourse. As NAW considers its next steps in Oregon, we will continue making that case in our challenges to similar EPR laws in California and Colorado.”

A patchwork of rules

EPR laws aren’t necessarily new. They existed for narrow categories like carpets or tires. But the broader scope for packaging is novel, according to Anna Kendall, senior manager, US EPR leader, Ernst & Young LLP.

“This new wave is applying the principles of EPR very broadly on packaging, so that shifts then who is in scope from just certain companies in certain industries to really any packaging,” Kendall said.

“Depending on the state, we’re talking about primary, secondary, and tertiary packaging. And depending on the state, we’re talking about both B2B and B2C sales.”

California, Colorado, Maryland, Maine, Massachusetts and Washington have their own versions of EPR rules, requiring companies that do business in those states to report on the volume and types of materials. Some are facing their own legal challenges.

The Circular Action Alliance, a nonprofit founded by heavy hitters in the packaging industry like Amazon, Kraft Heinz, Coca-Cola, Conagra Brands and Walmart, is the producer responsibility organization that implements EPR laws for Oregon, Colorado, California, Minnesota, Maryland and Washington.

The rules vary by state, including who reports the information, what needs to be included, and how fees and penalties are structured.

Kendall noted that, generally, the reporting obligation falls on the manufacturer or the brand owner, but some states may expand that to the licensee, importer or distributor.

California has additional requirements, specifically to reduce plastic and work towards broader targets around recycling rates and recyclable packaging, she added.

Some states — California, Colorado, Maine, and Oregon — exempt aluminum cans if they already have bottle bills or deposit return systems. But companies are still responsible for any other packaging around the beverage containers. Think cardboard boxes and shrink film.

California is targeting a 25% reduction in plastic packaging and components by 2032.

“What’s particularly interesting is that plastic, as defined in the California EPR regulations, is significantly broader than what you might think of as plastic,” Kendall said.

Aluminum can fall into the plastic category because of the polymer coating on the inside of a container or other food safety barriers.

“California has so many additional requirements that are still coming to light or being finalized,” Kendall noted.

But aluminum has advantages over other materials. In fact, the metal could become a material of choice for companies trying to cut their plastic usage.

“Aluminum is a bit advantageous in its current high recycling rates and recyclability. It can be positioned well for reuse/refill models, which we also see a 10% requirement in California to shift into reuse/refill by 2032 so getting ahead of some of those opportunities, and really positioning EPR as an opportunity for aluminum.”