US court denies paper group’s bid to join EPR lawsuit, sparking industry concern
Key takeaways
- A US court has denied AF&PA’s motion to intervene in the Oregon Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act lawsuit, citing untimeliness.
- The AF&PA criticized Oregon’s EPR law, arguing it imposes unnecessary financial burdens on paper manufacturers, state's DEQ maintains will improve recycling efficiency.
- The decision follows NAW’s previous successful temporary injunction against Oregon’s EPR.
A US court’s decision to block the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) from joining a lawsuit against Oregon’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act has raised concern about the impact of the legislation on the paper packaging industry.
Earlier this year, Oregon’s EPR law was temporarily blocked after the National Association of Wholesaler Distributors (NAW) argued it was unconstitutional and imposed burdensome fees on distributors.
However, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) argues that the state’s EPR is not unconstitutional and can reduce financial obligations for consumers and strengthen the state’s recycling infrastructure.
In March, the AF&PA asked the court for permission to join the case, due to similar concerns over EPR costs. But, according to multiple legal sources, the motion to intervene was denied by the court due to its untimeliness and potential to delay proceedings.
“We are disappointed by the court’s decision denying our motion to join the challenge to Oregon’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act. While we respectfully disagree with the ruling, AF&PA remains fully committed to pursuing all available legal and strategic options to protect our members’ interests,” Heidi Brock, president and CEO at AF&PA, tells Packaging Insights.
“Burden” on paper products
If the motion to intervene had been allowed, the AF&PA would have been able to make legal arguments, submit evidence, and potentially benefit from the ruling, and get an injunction.
AF&PA president Heidi Brock warns Oregon's EPR may burden paper distributors with increased costs, shifting financial liability to manufacturers.The preliminary injunction marks the first federal court intervention against an EPR program on constitutional grounds, according to Hogan Lovells, an international law firm.
For Brock, Oregon’s EPR could be costly for paper distributors, with financial liability shifted onto manufacturers.
She adds: “As Oregon’s program moves into implementation, it is becoming clear that the law imposes significant and unnecessary burdens on paper products that are already among the most successfully recycled materials in the US.”
“These burdens include higher-than-anticipated fees, expanded reporting, compliance obligations, and policy design choices that shift costs onto paper manufacturers without meaningfully improving recycling outcomes.”
However, Jen Parrott, a DEQ administrator, has stated that Oregon is a “known leader” in recycling and the EPR aims to bring “many parties together to share the cost of recycling improvements.”
Help or hindrance?
Oregon’s EPR aims to increase the efficiency of the state’s recycling system. It requires packaging producers to finance the end-of-life management of their packaging products.
It also aims to create a unified statewide list of recyclables, expand recycling services, provide recycling education materials to Oregon’s residents and businesses, and upgrade recycling sorting facilities.
Oregon’s EPR aims to create a unified statewide list of recyclables, expand recycling services, and upgrade recycling sorting facilities.Parrott adds: “EPR programs that reduce the burden on consumers are prevalent in Oregon and around the world, and we’re certain it can work for recycling.”
The AF&PA has stated its intent to continue pushing back against Oregon’s EPR until it takes into account the unintended costs on the US’s paper industry.
“We will continue working closely with partners and counsel to secure meaningful relief for our members and ensure that recycling policies are workable, fact-based, and do not increase costs across the supply chain for businesses and consumers alike,” concludes Brock.
Packaging Insights previously spoke to Eric Hoplin, president and CEO at NAW, about why the industry group pushed for an injunction. He explained that it relieves NAW members from enforcement from Oregon's DEQ, which he estimates comes with the potential of US$25,000 a day in penalties.
The temporary injunction will last until the judge makes a final decision on remaining claims following a trial starting July 13, 2026.
