The Nickel Report

Perhaps the biggest EPR news to date is the February 6, 2026 decision by the US District Court for the District of Oregon granting the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors Inc. (NAW) a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of Oregon’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (RMA) pending a decision on the merits.^[1] The Oregon litigation has the potential to affect the scope of EPR programs across the country, potentially extending beyond packaging to other products. In the meantime, product manufacturers and retailers must continue to wrestle with how best to manage EPR compliance and related costs and business impacts.

In recent months, some companies have begun reconsidering their sustainability targets. This trend is influenced by a range of factors, including economic pressures and scrutiny of climate action by the current federal administration and state attorneys general. In addition, many companies with interim decarbonization goals (e.g., companies with “net zero by 2050 goals” that also set 2030 targets) are finding they are not on track to meet them. When considering revising or abandoning existing goals, it is important to consider emerging risks under the current legal landscape, and to develop and follow a deliberate strategy to mitigate those risks.

Producer associations launch Textile Renewal Alliance as a prospective PRO to implement California’s textile EPR law.

As participation in Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) programs continues to grow in the US, the financial burden of developing recycling infrastructure is being transferred to producers of products that fall under the EPR mandates. Since our last update in January, several key developments across multiple jurisdictions have occurred, including the beginning of several state programs.