The National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in federal court to suspend enforcement of Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (RMA), the state statute underlying Circular Action Alliance (CAA)-run “extended producer responsibility” (EPR) program in Oregon

NAW argues the law — effective July 1 of this year — imposes an opaque, privately governed regulatory system that burdens distributors across interstate supply chains with retroactive fees and compliance obligations beyond their control.

Premium Q&A: What Distributors Should Know about Extended Producer Responsibility Laws (Aug. 1)

Key Allegations and Business Impacts

According to NAW:

• Under the RMA, distributors become designated “producers,” required to sign a mandatory, non-negotiable contract with CAA and pay fees calculated under a confidential methodology. NAW contends the fee-setting lacks meaningful state oversight.
• The first wave of invoices — issued in July 2025 — reportedly reached levels “significantly higher than publicly projected,” in some cases exceeding product margins. This disproportionately affects small and mid-sized distributor
• A second round of fees is expected in January. NAW notes that the state regulatory agency was not required to approve the new fee schedule, and only CAA and its controlling companies have reviewed the fee methodology.
• Noncompliance risks include civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day

“Rather than improve recycling outcomes, Oregon’s program operates as a closed regulatory system run by private interests, with binding financial consequences for businesses that have no control over packaging design or disposal,” said Brian Wild, NAW’s Chief Government Relations Officer. “Our members’ July invoices show a system that is unpredictable, opaque and economically unsustainable. With January assessments approaching and no transparency into how fees are set, businesses are facing uncertainty, instability and costs they cannot absorb.”

Legal Grounds for Challenge

In its lawsuit filed July 30, 2025, NAW argues that the RMA violates several constitutional protections, including:

• the federal Dormant Commerce Clause, by imposing burdens on interstate commerce;
• the non-delegation doctrine and due process, by handing sweeping regulatory and fee-setting authority to a private third-party (CAA) without clear legislative standards or meaningful oversight.

NAW is requesting the court declare the law invalid and permanently enjoin its enforcement, or at minimum pause enforcement pending resolution. 

Why this Matters — in Distribution and Other Industries

If granted, the injunction could pause obligations under the RMA — including reporting, payment and risk of penalties — relieving distributors from what NAW describes as “imminent and irreparable harm.” 

More broadly, the case could influence how EPR packaging laws are structured and enforced in other states. Several states — including Colorado, California and Minnesota — are considering or implementing packaging-EPR frameworks. NAW has indicated it is closely reviewing these developments for potential legal or advocacy actions. 

What Distributors Should Watch For

• Whether the court grants a preliminary injunction — and if that pause will include reporting and payment obligations under the RMA.
• How quickly and transparently CAA discloses its fee-calculation methodology, especially ahead of the anticipated January 2026 assessments.
• Broader regulatory and legislative activity in other states considering EPR laws — and whether NAW or related trade groups take similar legal or advocacy steps.