Oregon EPR Producers May Have an Off-Ramp From Paying CAA, At Least Temporarily

Thousands of producers currently writing checks to Circular Action Alliance (CAA) under Oregon’s Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) law may soon have grounds to stop, at least temporarily.¹

A new federal class action, Lollicup USA, Inc. v. Feldon, filed days ago in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, seeks to extend the constitutional protections that a narrow group of trade-association members secured earlier this year to every covered producer in Oregon. If the court certifies the class and grants the requested injunctive relief, producers outside the existing National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors v. Feldon injunction (which covers only National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) members as of February 2026) could have a legal basis to suspend fee payments, withhold compliance data, and refuse CAA’s enforcement demands while the case is pending.

Lollicup’s lawyers appear to have studied the NAW playbook carefully. The complaint raises only the two constitutional theories that survived scrutiny in the earlier NAW case: a Dormant Commerce Clause challenge to the Act’s fee structure and interstate burdens, and a Fourteenth Amendment Due Process challenge to the delegation of regulatory power to a private entity. Lollicup’s complaint targets the same structural defects of Oregon’s EPR scheme as NAW: a confidential rate methodology, mandatory arbitration, and $25,000-per-day penalties administered by a single private organization. The same court has already found “serious questions on the merits” of virtually identical claims. This is a meaningful signal and likely the reason for Lollicup’s strategic duplication of the claims. Lollicup dropped the NAW legal theories the court declined to credit earlier this year. 

This complaint shifts the strategic calculus for many Oregon producers. Companies paying into a program that a federal court has signaled may be unconstitutional now have a live proceeding that could formalize their right to pause compliance.

Still, this is not a sure thing. Class certification is a high procedural hurdle in federal litigation, and the breadth of the proposed class will likely draw scrutiny. Notably, the relief sought is exclusively forward-looking, and the suit does not seek refunds of fees already paid to CAA. Producers should also understand that even a successful preliminary injunction may only delay payment of fees incurred for packaging shipped to Oregon this year. An injunction, as requested by the plaintiff, would pause enforcement while the case proceeds, but the court could ultimately uphold the statutory scheme on the merits. Companies that suspend compliance in reliance on an injunction may face retroactive obligations if the law is later found constitutional. 

If you are a producer selling packaging, paper products, or food serviceware into Oregon above the Act’s de minimis thresholds, contact us to determine whether you fall within the proposed class in Lollicup’s complaint, what the pending litigation means for your current payment and disclosure obligations, and how to position your business both for the duration of the injunction and in the event the statute is ultimately upheld. Stay tuned for more developments in this rapidly developing landscape.