Oregon’s EPR Law Sparks Controversy (Image Credits: Pixabay)
Oregon – The National Federation of Independent Business filed an amicus brief last week in a federal lawsuit contesting the state’s Extended Producer Responsibility law for packaging and paper products.[1]
Oregon’s EPR Law Sparks Controversy
The Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act took effect in July 2025 after passage by state legislators in 2021. This measure shifted financial responsibility for recycling packaging, printing and writing paper, and food serviceware from local governments to producers.[2][3]
Producers, defined as brand owners or first sellers into Oregon, must register with the approved Producer Responsibility Organization, Circular Action Alliance. They submit annual data on materials supplied and pay eco-modulated fees based on weight and recyclability. The program aims to modernize recycling infrastructure, but critics highlight compliance hurdles for smaller operations.[4][5]
DEQ approved CAA’s plan in February 2025, marking the start of full operations. Producers faced initial registration deadlines in spring 2025, with ongoing reporting requirements shaping future fees.[6]
NFIB Steps In with Strong Objections
NFIB’s Small Business Legal Center submitted its brief on January 27, 2026, backing plaintiffs in National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors v. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. The filing spotlights risks to interstate commerce posed by the law.[1][7]
Beth Milito, vice president and executive director of the center, stated that Oregon’s EPR regime goes beyond the authority granted to states in the Constitution by attempting to regulate businesses outside of Oregon.[1] The group contends the law imposes extraterritorial regulations, forcing out-of-state firms to alter operations nationwide.
Delegating authority to a private PRO like CAA draws particular criticism. NFIB argues this setup amplifies burdens without adequate oversight, potentially hiking costs unfairly.[1]
Compliance Strains Hit Small Businesses Hard
Out-of-state small producers face steep challenges under the EPR framework. Even minimal sales into Oregon trigger registration, data tracking, and fee payments, diverting resources from core activities.
- Reporting supply data for 2025 determines 2027 fees, due by May 2026.
- Eco-modulated structure penalizes less recyclable materials, pressuring redesigns.
- Alternatives to CAA membership carry prohibitive costs, effectively mandating PRO participation.
- Distributors and wholesalers bear indirect hits through supply chain ripple effects.
NFIB emphasizes that such mandates discriminate against interstate players, violating the Dormant Commerce Clause. Small firms lack the scale to absorb these expenses easily.[8]
Lawsuit Progresses Amid Rising Stakes
NAW launched the suit on July 30, 2025, in U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction in November 2025 to pause enforcement, citing irreparable harm from compliance costs.
Oregon countered with a motion to dismiss in December 2025, defending the program’s jurisdiction and constitutionality. The case remains active, with NFIB’s input adding weight to arguments on small business impacts.[9][10]
A ruling could influence similar EPR efforts in states like California and Colorado, where CAA also operates.
Key Takeaways:
- Oregon EPR targets packaging producers with PRO fees and reporting.
- NFIB brief flags Commerce Clause violations and private delegation risks.
- Small out-of-state businesses face disproportionate compliance burdens.
This dispute underscores tensions between state environmental goals and federal commerce protections. A successful challenge might reshape producer-funded recycling nationwide. What do you think about the balance between sustainability mandates and business freedoms? Tell us in the comments.
