The Auto Care Association filed a motion on 15 October 2026 to join as plaintiff in National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors v. Ryan, the federal suit challenging Colorado's packaging extended producer responsibility law. The association objects to automotive and petroleum producers having to report and pay fees to both Circular Action Alliance and the Lubricants Packaging Management Association (LPMA) for the same products. Member AutoZone has paid more than USD 575,000 to the two organisations, and LPMA plans to move to a materials-based fee schedule on 1 January 2027 that the complaint says could raise some rates by over 300%.
Why this mattersA second producer-responsibility organisation operating alongside Circular Action Alliance raises compliance cost and complexity that other states weighing EPR design may need to address.
- Auto Care Association filed its motion on 15 October 2026 in the US District Court for the District of Colorado.
- CDPHE approved LPMA's individual program plan, operating as Interchange 360, on 9 September 2025.
- O'Reilly has been invoiced more than USD 350,000 by CAA and expects LPMA fees above USD 500,000.
- AutoZone has paid more than USD 575,000 across both organisations, including over USD 415,000 to LPMA, plus about USD 390,000 in consultant and software costs.
- LPMA currently charges a flat 56 cents per gallon and plans a materials-based schedule from 84 cents to USD 1.88 per gallon starting 1 January 2027.
- The Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association separately sued over the LPMA plan in Colorado state court in March 2026.
The National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) has filed an appeal against an Oregon ruling that let the state delegate producer-fee-setting authority under its extended producer responsibility law to the Circular Action Alliance (CAA). NAW argues the delegation bypasses public rulemaking procedure and that CAA's multistate fee schedules disrupt interstate supply chains for covered paper and packaging. The case could affect how similar PRO-based EPR programmes in California, Colorado, Minnesota and Maine set producer fees.
Why this mattersA ruling against CAA's fee-setting power could force state agencies to take direct control of EPR fee schedules, reshaping compliance costs across several US states.
- NAW has appealed a ruling that allowed Oregon's DEQ to delegate producer fee-setting authority to CAA
- CAA is the PRO Oregon selected to run its printed paper and packaging EPR programme
- NAW's appeal cites both improper rate-making delegation and interstate supply chain disruption
- California, Colorado, Minnesota and Maine have similar EPR frameworks that rely on the same PRO model
- Producer fees under Oregon's EPR law fund collection, sorting, processing and recycling-rate improvements
- Oregon's programme is moving toward its first compliance milestones for producers
- NAW's federal suit alleges Oregon's EPR law breaches the Dormant Commerce Clause by favouring in-state entities
- Oregon collected USD 167m in recycling fees last year but spent USD 55m on recycling infrastructure, NAW says
- NAW president Eric Hoplin says the law targets wholesalers rather than packaging manufacturers
- NAW's lawyers say Circular Action Alliance's fee-setting methodology remains confidential
- NAW filed a motion on 17 October 2026 seeking a stay of Oregon's EPR law pending its Ninth Circuit appeal.
- A district court upheld the law in August 2026 and lifted the preliminary injunction that had protected NAW members since February 2026.
- Circular Action Alliance is expected to issue its next round of producer fee invoices in January 2027.
- NAW also has pending EPR legal challenges in California and Colorado.
A U.S. federal court on 27 August 2026 upheld Oregon's packaging Extended Producer Responsibility law in full, rejecting a constitutional challenge from the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors and lifting a preliminary injunction that had blocked enforcement since February 2026. The decision, the first full-trial federal ruling on a state packaging EPR law's constitutionality, restores the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality's power to enforce fee and reporting obligations administered by Circular Action Alliance against all covered producers, and is expected to influence pending challenges in Colorado and California.
Why this mattersThe ruling sets the first legal precedent that state packaging EPR fee regimes survive constitutional challenge, reinforcing enforcement risk for producers across six other US states.
- Judge Michael H. Simon of the U.S. District Court for Oregon ruled on 27 August 2026, rejecting Dormant Commerce Clause and Due Process claims against the Recycling Modernization Act (RMA).
- The ruling lifted a preliminary injunction dated 6 February 2026 that had shielded National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) members from enforcement by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
- It is the first federal ruling on the merits, after a five-day bench trial held 13-17 July 2026, addressing the constitutionality of a state packaging EPR law.
- Circular Action Alliance administers Oregon's EPR programme as the producer responsibility organisation, with first producer fee invoices issued in July 2025.
- California, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington have enacted similar packaging EPR laws; Nebraska et al. v. Heller, filed 22 June 2026 by a 17-state coalition and NAW, challenges California's SB 54.
- NAW has said it is weighing its next steps, and the district court is considered unlikely to pause implementation of the RMA.
- NAW filed its notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit challenging the district court's 27 August 2026 ruling in NAW v. Feldon (Case No. 3:25-cv-01334-SI).
- Figures cited in the ruling show the Circular Action Alliance collected USD 145.5m from producers and spent USD 56.5m, leaving almost USD 90m unspent.
- NAW is also the sole business plaintiff in a 17-state coalition challenging California's EPR law and has filed a separate challenge to Colorado's EPR law.
A US federal district court has upheld Oregon's packaging and foodservice ware extended producer responsibility programme, rejecting a constitutional challenge brought by the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors on dormant Commerce Clause and Due Process grounds. The 27 August 2026 ruling followed a five-day bench trial and addressed the fee-setting role of the Circular Action Alliance, the sole approved producer responsibility organisation implementing the scheme. NAW, which is also litigating against similar EPR laws in California and Colorado, said it is considering next steps.
Why this mattersA district court ruling upholding Oregon's fee model strengthens the position of packaging EPR schemes facing parallel challenges in California and Colorado.
- A federal judge ruled on 27 August 2026 that Oregon's Recycling Modernization Act does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause or Due Process Clause
- The decision followed a preliminary injunction covering NAW members and a five-day bench trial
- Oregon is one of seven US states with a packaging EPR programme; similar litigation brought by NAW is ongoing in California and Colorado
- The Circular Action Alliance, the sole approved producer responsibility organisation for the programme, collected USD 90m more than it spent in 2025, which the court found not clearly excessive
- NAW's claims included discrimination against interstate commerce, an unreasonable user fee, undue burden on interstate commerce, and improper delegation of regulatory authority to CAA
- The National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors said it is considering its next steps
- NAW filed its notice of appeal on 24 September 2026 with the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- NAW cites Circular Action Alliance's 2025 annual report showing it collected USD 145.5m and spent USD 56.5m.
- NAW is the sole business plaintiff in Nebraska v. Heller, a 17-state challenge to California's SB 54, with a preliminary injunction hearing set for January 2027.
California's SB 54 extended producer responsibility law faces two competing lawsuits: 17 US states and a wholesalers' association filed suit on 22 June 2026 arguing the law is unconstitutional, while three environmental groups sued CalRecycle on 2 June 2026 claiming the finalised implementing regulations weaken the law. The litigation leaves consumer product companies operating under SB 54's data reporting, eco-modulated fee and recycling requirements while the outcome remains uncertain. A comparable Oregon EPR law was upheld by a federal court on 27 August 2026, a precedent both sides are watching.
Why this mattersThe outcome will determine whether producers face SB 54's reporting, fee and recycling mandates or a weakened or suspended regime, shaping compliance costs across the US packaging supply chain.
- SB 54, California's Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, was signed into law in 2022.
- CalRecycle finalised revised implementing regulations in May 2026 after a restart ordered by Governor Newsom in March 2025.
- On 2 June 2026, NRDC, Californians Against Waste Foundation and Oceana Inc. sued CalRecycle claiming the 2026 regulations create loopholes weakening SB 54.
- On 22 June 2026, 17 US states led by Nebraska and the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors sued CalRecycle and the Circular Action Alliance, calling SB 54 unconstitutional.
- CalRecycle estimates packaging accounts for over 50% by volume of California landfill waste.
- On 27 August 2026, an Oregon federal court rejected a similar NAW challenge to Oregon's plastic packaging EPR law.
