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.

The NAW Decision

NAW asserted in its complaint that Oregon’s RMA imposes excessive and discriminatory burdens on out of state producers and improperly delegates regulatory authority to the producer responsibility organization (PRO). Although the court dismissed several of NAW’s claims through a partial grant of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (Oregon DEQ) motion to dismiss, NAW’s Dormant Commerce Clause and Due Process claims will proceed. Significantly, the court also granted NAW’s motion for a preliminary injunction, which has the effect of prohibiting the Oregon DEQ from enforcing the law against NAW and its members. EPR obligations remain in force for other regulated parties, but it is yet to be seen whether Oregon DEQ will pause the program entirely while the litigation is pending. The preliminary injunction decision is also significant because it indicates the court’s view that NAW is reasonably likely to succeed on the merits of its case.

Current Status of Packaging EPR Programs

EPR is an old policy tool that has long been used to address hazardous products, such as paint. In recent years, there has been a groundswell in new state EPR programs that address ubiquitous consumer products, such as disposable packaging.

Seven states—California, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington—have passed EPR legislation for packaging and paper products and are in various stages of program implementation. Most notably:

• Oregon and Colorado collected producer data for the first time in 2025. Producers received invoices for dues in Oregon last year and will begin receiving invoices for dues in Colorado early this year.
• Despite delaying its rulemaking process several times, California continues to aim for a program implementation date of January 1, 2027. The comment period on California’s newly proposed regulations ends on February 13. Circular Action Alliance anticipates issuing a draft PRO plan in mid-2026, after which it will undergo review by both the SB 54 Advisory Board and CalRecycle.
• Washington is expected to initiate rulemaking early this year.
• Several other states are either considering EPR legislation or conducting EPR needs assessments.

In light of these developments, 2026 will be key for understanding the financial impact and administrative impacts of packaging EPR requirements on affected businesses.

Other EPR Trends – Batteries and Textiles

Other products in the EPR crosshairs include batteries and textiles.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Department of Energy (DOE) are currently developing a national EPR framework for batteries pursuant to the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. This initiative will not displace state EPR programs but will instead provide current best practices to support state EPR design and implementation and promote consistency across jurisdictions. EPA is developing a Report to Congress that will lay out best practices for battery recycling, describe the current state of battery collection, and lay out EPA’s next steps. The national battery EPR framework and accompanying Report to Congress will consider all battery chemistries (e.g., lithium-based, nickel-metal hydride, alkaline) and small (single-use and rechargeable) and mid-format batteries.

In the meantime, a number of states have already passed laws governing battery collection and recycling. These laws differ somewhat in both the obligations they impose on battery manufacturers and retailers, and in the types of batteries they cover.

• Vermont enacted the nation’s first EPR law for single-use household batteries in 2014, and expanded its program in 2024, to add rechargeable batteries and battery-containing products.
• Other states, such as New York, California, and Illinois, have followed a similar trajectory as Vermont, recently expanding the scope of their programs.
• In 2025 Nebraska, Colorado, and Connecticut passed new EPR legislation for certain batteries and battery-containing products that requires covered producers and retailers to join and fund a battery stewardship organization.

Given the structural similarities to packaging EPR programs, it is possible that the future of these laws could be affected by the result of the Oregon litigation.

Textiles represent the next front. In 2024, California passed SB 707, the nation’s first EPR law specific to textiles and apparel. SB 707 requires covered producers to join and fund a PRO responsible for collecting, processing, and recycling apparel and textile articles. In 2025, three organizations applied to be California’s textile PRO, and CalRecycle will make its selection by March 1, 2026. Other states are also considering EPR legislation for textiles.

What’s Next

EPR is increasingly affecting a broad range of consumer products, imposing both compliance burdens and direct business costs on manufacturers and retailers across industries. Companies that are subject to this complex patchwork should continue to monitor both the Oregon litigation and relevant regulatory and program implementation processes. Contact Hunton’s Sustainability and Product Stewardship team for help with EPR compliance planning and strategic support.

[1] National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors v. Feldon, No. 3:25-cv-01334-SI.