Three state packaging laws reached milestones within weeks of each other this autumn, and the pattern matters more than any single ruling. Oregon’s extended producer responsibility law survived its first full constitutional trial. California’s parallel laws, SB 54 and SB 343, are being pulled into the same lawsuit by industry groups hoping a free-speech win on one will carry over to the other. Minnesota, meanwhile, published hard numbers showing its PFAS phase-out is actually moving products off shelves. Read together, they show where state packaging law in the US is solid ground for producers and where it still is not.
Oregon’s EPR law clears its first trial
On August 27, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon ruled on the merits of a challenge to the state’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (RMA), the law that shifts end-of-life costs for packaging onto producers through a producer responsibility organization. U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon upheld in its entirety Oregon’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act, reversing an earlier preliminary injunction that had captured stakeholder attention. The case, brought by the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW), is the first to reach a full merits decision on a modern packaging EPR program.
NAW’s case rested on two constitutional theories. The lawsuit challenged Oregon’s EPR program on both Dormant Commerce Clause and Due Process grounds, arguing that the law discriminated against interstate commerce, imposed burdensome and opaque fee obligations, and improperly delegated regulatory authority to the state’s producer responsibility organization, currently the Circular Action Alliance. After a lengthy evidentiary record, the court was not persuaded. Following a five-day bench trial in July 2026, Judge Simon rejected each of NAW’s remaining constitutional claims.
The practical effect is immediate. DEQ enforcement proceedings can resume, at least for the time being, and NAW has said it is considering its next steps in Oregon, which could include an appeal to the Ninth Circuit. For producers already reporting and paying fees under the RMA, nothing changes operationally. For producers who had been hoping the law might be struck down, that door has narrowed considerably, pending any appeal.
Why this ruling travels
Oregon’s RMA shares its basic architecture, a mandatory PRO, producer fees tied to packaging weight and material, and state oversight of design requirements, with EPR laws now on the books in California, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Maryland and Washington. A ruling that this structure does not violate the Commerce Clause or Due Process Clause is being read as persuasive authority well beyond Oregon’s borders. The ruling may support defenses of similar EPR laws in California, Colorado, and other states.
That is already playing out. California’s attorney general and CalRecycle are defending SB 54 against a separate 17-state lawsuit led by Nebraska, and Oregon’s reasoning is expected to feature heavily in that defense. Judge Simon’s dismissal of similar concerns and deference to state legislative action is expected to be cited in CalRecycle’s opposition brief, which is slated to be filed on October 23, 2026. Brand owners operating in multiple EPR states should expect this decision to come up in briefing wherever Commerce Clause or Due Process arguments are raised against fee-based EPR structures, even though it binds no court outside Oregon.
California’s twin fights: SB 54 and SB 343
California’s packaging laws are being tested on a different theory, and with a different result so far. SB 343, the “truth in recycling” labeling law, has already been partially blocked in federal court. The court’s July order barred enforcement of SB 343 on the basis that the law’s recyclability provisions likely violate the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That injunction remains in place. The plaintiffs, led by the California League of Food Producers, found success in July securing a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of SB 343.
This creates an odd practical situation. SB 343’s statutory effective date was October 4, 2026, and the underlying rule has not been repealed. All products and packaging manufactured on or after this date must comply with SB 343’s labeling restrictions, which apply based on the date of manufacture rather than the date of sale, so products manufactured before October 4, 2026 are not subject to the restrictions regardless of when they are later sold. But with enforcement enjoined, CalRecycle cannot currently act against non-compliant labels while the litigation continues. Packaging teams should not treat the injunction as permanent relief. It is a pause, not a repeal, and compliance programs built around the law’s six criteria, on collection access, sortation, composition and PFAS content, remain the sensible baseline to build toward.
Having won that First Amendment argument once, the same plaintiff group now wants to apply it to SB 54, California’s EPR and source-reduction law. On October 8, 2026, they asked the court for permission to broaden the case. Plaintiffs in California League of Food Producers v. Bonta asked the court for permission to file a Second Amended Complaint asserting that certain provisions of SB 54 violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments; if allowed, the amendment would significantly expand the scope of the litigation and adds CalRecycle and the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration as defendants. The target is specific. Plaintiffs want to challenge provisions of SB 54 that redefine the word “recyclable,” create opaque product and packaging design requirements, and place corresponding compliance and financial obligations on businesses.
This is a separate case from the 17-state Commerce Clause lawsuit against SB 54. More than 20 business groups are participating in the newly updated case first filed in March, led by the California League of Food Producers, with plaintiffs including the American Forest & Paper Association, the Flexible Packaging Association and the Consumer Brands Association. A hearing is already on the calendar. A hearing is scheduled in San Diego for November 9, with Judge William Q. Hayes overseeing the case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
Put the two California theories side by side and a pattern appears. Oregon shows that fee-based EPR mechanics, who pays, how much, and to whom, are likely to survive Commerce Clause and Due Process review. California’s First Amendment theory targets something different: the state’s power to define words like “recyclable” and attach legal consequences to how producers describe their own packaging. That theory has already won once, against SB 343. Whether it extends to SB 54’s design and labeling provisions is the question the Bonta court will have to answer, and the outcome could matter more to converters and brand owners than the Commerce Clause fight, because it goes directly to what can be printed on a pack.
| Jurisdiction | Law | Challenge | Status, October 2026 | Practical effect |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oregon | RMA (packaging EPR) | Commerce Clause, Due Process (NAW v. Feldon) | Upheld by federal district court, Aug 27 2026; injunction lifted | DEQ enforcement resumes; NAW weighing Ninth Circuit appeal |
| California | SB 54 (packaging EPR) | Commerce Clause, First Amendment (Nebraska v. Heller, 17 state AGs + NAW) | Pending; CalRecycle opposition brief due Oct 23, 2026 | SB 54 obligations continue while the case proceeds |
| California | SB 54 (recyclability definitions, design rules) | First Amendment (proposed amendment, Calif. League of Food Producers v. Bonta) | Amendment requested Oct 8, 2026; hearing Nov 9, 2026 | Could extend SB 343’s First Amendment reasoning to SB 54 |
| California | SB 343 (recyclability labeling) | First Amendment, Due Process (same Bonta case) | Enforcement enjoined since July 2026 | Statutory Oct 4, 2026 date passed, but no active enforcement |
| Minnesota | Amara’s Law (PFAS reporting and phase-out) | None active | Reporting due Sept 15, 2026 (or Dec 14 with extension) | Food packaging makers already show 92.1% compliance |
Minnesota’s PFAS numbers show the phase-out working
Away from the courtroom, Minnesota published the kind of data that regulatory teams in other states will want to see before their own PFAS bans bite. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency announced on September 22, 2026, that it has confirmed that product manufacturers in certain key categories have largely transitioned to safer products. The agency tests products it buys from stores against the state’s PFAS, lead and cadmium prohibitions under Amara’s Law.
The food packaging trend line is the clearest evidence of a phase-out working as intended. In 2023, only 52 of 90 products, or 57.8 percent, did not contain elevated levels of PFAS. After the prohibition took effect in 2024, that number improved to 63.4 percent, and by 2025, 90 percent did not contain elevated levels. By 2026, 35 of 38 food-packaging products, or 92.1 percent, complied with Minnesota’s PFAS laws.
This round of testing also covered two categories for the first time, menstrual products and dental floss, which came under Amara’s Law’s PFAS restrictions from January 1, 2025. Among menstrual products, 26 of 27, or 96.3 percent, passed MPCA’s tests. Among dental floss, 17 of 19 products, or 89.5 percent, were compliant. Across all three categories, MPCA reported an overall compliance rate of 92.8 percent.
MPCA has said it will expand testing to additional product categories going forward, though it has not yet specified which ones. The direction of travel is the point for packaging teams elsewhere: a state PFAS ban with firm deadlines, reporting obligations and published enforcement data is producing fast, measurable compliance gains in a market as large as food packaging, without the stock-exhaustion grace periods some sectors have hoped for in other jurisdictions.
What this means in practice
For brand owners selling in Oregon, the compliance calendar for the RMA is back on and should be treated as settled unless and until a higher court says otherwise. For brand owners and converters selling into California, SB 54’s underlying compliance and reporting obligations have not been paused by any of this litigation; only SB 343’s labeling enforcement has been enjoined, and only for now. Packaging that currently carries recyclability claims calibrated to SB 343’s criteria should stay that way: the injunction can be lifted or narrowed on appeal, and the safer assumption is that the law’s substantive test, not the symbol ban alone, will eventually govern.
For companies selling PFAS-restricted categories into Minnesota, food packaging, Minnesota’s own data suggests the market has largely adjusted already; suppliers still carrying elevated fluorine levels in food contact papers or films are now a visible minority rather than the norm, which raises the practical and reputational cost of lagging.
None of this is legal advice, and litigation outcomes can change quickly on appeal. Companies with material exposure to SB 54, SB 343 or the Oregon RMA should get current advice from counsel rather than rely on a single ruling’s headline.
What to do now
- Continue Oregon RMA reporting and fee obligations; do not assume further relief is coming without a Ninth Circuit ruling.
- Keep California SB 343 label changes on track even though enforcement is enjoined; the statutory criteria remain the likely long-term standard.
- Watch the November 9 hearing in California League of Food Producers v. Bonta for signs the First Amendment theory will reach SB 54’s design and labeling rules.
- If selling food packaging, menstrual products or dental floss into Minnesota, confirm supplier PFAS data ahead of the September 15 (or extended December 14) reporting deadline under Amara’s Law.
- Track CalRecycle’s October 23 opposition brief in the 17-state SB 54 Commerce Clause case for how it uses the Oregon ruling.
Sources
- Source: Oregon Federal Court Upholds Packaging EPR Law, Rejecting Constitutional Challenge (Baker Donelson)
- Source: Federal Judges Rules Oregon Packaging EPR Law Constitutional (National Law Review)
- Source: Federal Court Upholds Oregon’s Packaging EPR Law In Landmark Ruling (Legal 500)
- Source: AF&PA, FPA and others allege SB 54 violates free speech (Packaging Dive)
- Source: Plaintiffs Ask Court to Add Constitutional Claims Against SB 54 to Their SB 343 Challenge (National Law Review)
- Source: Are Your Products Ready? California’s Truth in Recycling Labeling (SB 343) Restrictions Become Effective (Squire Patton Boggs)
- Source: California’s SB 343 Restricts Common Recyclability Claims (Nixon Peabody)
- Source: Minnesota Finds Decrease in Certain Consumer Products Containing PFAS (National Law Review)
- Source: Minnesota Finds Decrease in Certain Consumer Products Containing PFAS (Bergeson & Campbell)