EPRScopePackaging EPR Entity Intelligence
Open live demo →
EPRScope / EPR litigation tracker
COURT ORDERS, PARTY CLAIMS & CURRENT PRODUCER EFFECT

Packaging EPR litigation tracker

A lawsuit is not a compliance pause. This tracker separates what a party alleges, what relief it asks for, what a court actually orders and whether producer exposure changes today.

Four active matters trackedNot legal advice
Prepared by EPRScope Research DeskCourt-linked, official state and party sourcesMethodology & corrections
OREGON · MERITS DECISION

NAW v. Feldon

Judge Michael Simon upheld Oregon’s RMA on August 27. The earlier NAW-member injunction was interim relief pending a merits ruling and should no longer be relied on as a basis to pause compliance.

Read the ruling analysis →
CALIFORNIA · PI MOTION PENDING

Nebraska v. Heller

A 17-state coalition and NAW challenge SB 54 and have requested a preliminary injunction. No injunction has been identified, so current obligations are not stayed by the filing.

California guide →
COLORADO · PI MOTION PENDING

NAW v. Ryan

NAW filed a federal challenge to Colorado’s EPR law and moved for preliminary relief. No order granting relief has been identified; Colorado registration, reporting and fee obligations continue.

Colorado guide →
COLORADO · NO PI SOUGHT

ILMA v. CDPHE

The Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association separately challenges Colorado’s delegation and due-process structure. The case did not itself suspend the program.

Colorado guide →

Oregon: the first full merits ruling

In National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors v. Feldon, No. 3:25-cv-01334-SI, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon issued findings and conclusions after a five-day bench trial. The court rejected NAW’s dormant Commerce Clause and Due Process challenges.

Court holding: no discriminatory purpose or effect against interstate commerce.
Court holding: compliance burdens were not clearly excessive compared with Oregon’s environmental and waste-management interests.
Court holding: Oregon DEQ retains adequate oversight of the PRO.
Court holding: notice, hearings and judicial review provide sufficient process before penalties.
Current effect: producers should treat Oregon requirements as operative unless a later court enters a stay or other relief.

NAW says it disagrees, continues to view the fee-setting system as opaque and is reviewing next steps. That statement is a party position, not a court holding.

California: injunction requested, none entered

In Nebraska v. Heller, a coalition of state attorneys general and NAW challenges California SB 54 on several constitutional theories. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and a preliminary-injunction motion on August 20, 2026.

A request for an injunction has no operative effect unless the court grants relief. The motion is pending; no SB 54 obligations have been stayed. EPRScope therefore records this as a material litigation development with no immediate compliance change.

Colorado: two different challenges

NAW v. Ryan, No. 1:26-cv-03460 (D. Colo.), was filed July 30, 2026. NAW challenges the Colorado program’s delegation, compelled-association and fee-disclosure structure and has requested a preliminary injunction. No relief has been identified.

Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association v. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment is a separate state-court challenge. The two cases should not be blended: they have different plaintiffs, claims and requested relief. Neither filing by itself suspends Colorado’s program. EPRScope records those allegations as litigation claims, not as holdings or current compliance relief.

How EPRScope classifies litigation

Complaint filed: allegations only; no relief unless a court acts.
Injunction motion filed: requested relief; no compliance change until an order is entered.
Preliminary injunction entered: identify exactly who is protected, what conduct is enjoined and how long relief lasts.
Merits decision entered: record what the court held, judgment effect and any remaining stay question.
Appeal filed: continue current treatment unless an appellate or district court stay changes exposure.

What producers should do with this tracker

Use litigation status to decide what must be reviewed—not to infer producer status or erase a deadline. The operating questions are narrower:

Does an entered order cover this exact company or membership group?
Does the order stay enforcement, underlying obligations, PRO invoices, or only a specific state action?
Has the order expired, been dissolved, stayed or superseded by a merits judgment?
What evidence supports the company’s present treatment while the case continues?

Sources

Oregon DEQ — RMA upheld as constitutionalNAW v. Feldon — findings and conclusions, court-linked copyNixon Peabody — Oregon ruling analysisNAW — Oregon post-decision statementNAW — California injunction requestNAW — Colorado complaint announcementColorado CDPHE — current EPR program source

Do not let a lawsuit become an undocumented compliance assumption.

EPRScope records the filed claim, entered order, current legal effect, affected entities, supporting source and next review trigger separately.

See the reviewed-event workflow →Request Monitor access