US EPR fight intensifies: Ninth Circuit takes up Oregon case, NAW presses on

Four developments this week sharpen the picture of US packaging regulation: a federal appeals court will hear a constitutional challenge to Oregon’s extended producer responsibility law, a separate industry lawsuit against state EPR statutes continues, Washington State readies retailers for a new battery recycling program, and federal lawmakers have reintroduced a bill to restrict PFAS in food packaging nationally. None of this is final. Together, the stories show where legal and political pressure is building on a state-by-state system that still has no federal counterpart.

Oregon’s EPR law heads to the Ninth Circuit

The National Law Review reports that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to review a constitutional challenge to Oregon’s packaging EPR law. Oregon was among the first states to adopt producer responsibility for packaging, and its program has been running long enough to generate real compliance history for brand owners and converters selling into the state.

The legal theory behind the challenge was not detailed in available reporting, and the article does not disclose which constitutional provisions are at issue or what relief the plaintiffs seek. Packaging professionals operating in Oregon should treat the program as in force while the appeal proceeds. Courts rarely stay EPR fee obligations during litigation unless a plaintiff secures a specific injunction, and nothing in current reporting indicates that has happened here.

A Ninth Circuit ruling could matter well beyond Oregon. The circuit covers several of the states that have already passed packaging EPR laws, including California and Washington, so a decision on Oregon’s statutory design could shape arguments in neighboring jurisdictions.

A second track of litigation: NAW’s broader challenge

Separately, Packaging World reports that the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors is continuing its legal battle against state EPR laws more broadly, rather than challenging a single state’s statute in isolation. The distinction matters for how packaging engineers and procurement teams should read the news: this is not one case working through one appeal, but at least two parallel legal tracks testing different aspects of how states can require producers to fund packaging recycling.

For converters and brand owners, the practical takeaway is the same regardless of which case moves fastest: budget for compliance obligations as they currently stand in each state where you sell packaged goods, and treat any eventual court ruling as a trigger to revisit that budget, not a reason to defer registration or reporting now.

Washington adds a battery recycling program for retailers

The Washington Retail Association has published guidance for retailers on a new battery recycling program taking effect in the state. This sits alongside, rather than inside, Washington’s packaging EPR law, but it reflects the same regulatory direction: states are extending producer and retailer responsibility to more product categories, and compliance calendars for multi-category retailers are getting more crowded.

Packaging teams that treat EPR, battery take-back and other state programs as separate silos risk missing overlaps, particularly for products sold with integrated batteries, such as electronics packaging or battery-powered consumer goods, where packaging and product end-of-life rules can both apply. Retail compliance staff in Washington should confirm with the state which product categories and packaging configurations are in scope, since program boundaries are defined by statute and implementing rules, not by common sense groupings of similar products.

Federal PFAS bill returns, with over a dozen states already ahead of it

Packaging Dive reports that senators Hassan and Tuberville have reintroduced the Keep Food Containers Safe from PFAS Act, a federal bill restricting PFAS in food packaging. This is the second time the bill has been introduced in Congress, and it has not passed. Packaging Dive notes that more than a dozen states have already passed their own PFAS restrictions in packaging, which means a federal law, if it eventually passes, would need to reconcile with an existing patchwork rather than create one from scratch.

Brand owners selling food packaging nationally should not wait for federal action. State PFAS restrictions already in force are the operative compliance requirement, and companies sourcing fiber-based food packaging, molded trays, or grease-resistant coatings should confirm supplier certifications against the specific state limits that apply to their distribution footprint. A federal standard, if adopted, would likely set a floor rather than immediately override tighter state rules, though that depends on the bill’s preemption language, which is not yet settled.

California vetoes recycled-content labeling, citing tariffs

Yahoo reports that Governor Newsom vetoed a bill that would have required recycled-content labeling in California, citing tariff pressures as a reason. This follows California’s SB 343 recyclability claim rules, which Nutritional Outlook notes food and beverage brands need to reconcile with their labeling practices as compliance deadlines approach in October 2026. SB 343 governs when a “recyclable” claim can appear on packaging in California; the vetoed bill would have gone further by mandating disclosure of recycled content levels.

The veto means California will not add a recycled-content labeling mandate this cycle, but SB 343’s recyclability claim restrictions remain in force on their existing schedule. Brands should treat these as two separate compliance tracks: one on what you can claim about recyclability, now largely settled under SB 343, and one on recycled-content disclosure, which stays voluntary in California for now following this veto.

What to do now

If you sell packaged goods in Oregon, continue complying with the state’s EPR program; the Ninth Circuit review does not currently suspend obligations.
Track both the Oregon-specific appeal and NAW’s broader litigation separately; they raise different legal questions and may resolve on different timelines.
Washington retailers handling battery-containing products should confirm with the state which packaging configurations fall under the new battery program, separate from the state’s packaging EPR law.
Food packaging suppliers should continue meeting state PFAS limits already in force rather than waiting on the federal bill, which has not passed in two attempts.
California brands should verify SB 343 recyclability claim compliance ahead of the October 2026 deadline, and note that recycled-content labeling remains voluntary after the governor’s veto.
Check official state and federal text directly before making compliance decisions; this article summarizes reporting, not legal advice.