A Reprieve From Packaging EPR Enforcement In Oregon (For Now): Parties Stipulate To A Pause In Lollicup

Producers staring down potential enforcement action by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) under the state’s packaging extended producer responsibility (EPR) program have been given a brief reprieve. On July 16, 2026, the parties in the putative class action challenging the Oregon program, Lollicup USA, Inc. v. Feldon, entered into a stipulation providing that DEQ’s Materials Management Program will not issue pre-enforcement notices against plaintiff Lollicup USA Inc. or any members of the putative class in that case until at least August 31, 2026. That class includes all producers under Oregon’s EPR statute “that exceed the de minimis thresholds set forth in ORS § 459A.872 and that are not afforded the protection of the preliminary injunction entered in National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors v. Feldon.” Recognizing the substantial overlap between the challenges to the EPR program raised in Lollicup and NAW, which went to trial last week, the stipulation explains that the parties agreed to the pause in enforcement to avoid the time and expense involved in litigating a motion for a preliminary injunction now, when a decision in NAW is forthcoming.

As explained in the stipulation, issuance of a pre-enforcement notice by DEQ’s Materials Management Program is an initial step before DEQ’s Office of Compliance and Enforcement initiates formal enforcement proceedings against a producer. While DEQ has agreed to halt its enforcement efforts for the moment, the stipulation clarifies that the parties’ agreement does not affect DEQ’s ability to investigate, issue warning letters, or perform any other pre-enforcement action allowed under Oregon law. In other words, the stipulation does not halt producers’ obligations to comply with the EPR program or DEQ’s ability to investigate and assess non-compliance; it only pauses DEQ’s initiation of formal enforcement action during this period. The parties’ agreement also does not affect Oregon’s producer responsibility organization, the Circular Action Alliance (CAA), which is not a party to the suit — meaning that CAA can continue to assess fees, publish lists of non-compliant producers, and take any other actions currently within the ambit of its responsibilities under the Oregon EPR program. The stipulation provides that the parties may extend the period of non-enforcement beyond August 31 with mutual agreement in writing.

In addition to a pause in enforcement, the parties also agreed to extend defendant’s time to respond to the complaint indefinitely and to strike all other deadlines in Lollicup pending the court’s decision in NAW. Both cases are before the Honorable Michael H. Simon. The court granted the parties’ motion, striking all existing deadlines and ordering the parties to provide a joint status report by September 10, 2026.

While the parties’ stipulation is not a long-term solution to the thorny issues surrounding implementation and enforcement of Oregon’s EPR program, it does provide something that many producers have been seeking since the entry of the preliminary injunction in NAW — clarity regarding whether they might be subject to enforcement action while the challenges to Oregon’s program remain pending. In NAW, the court limited the preliminary injunction to the trade association plaintiff and its members as of the date the preliminary injunction was entered. For members of other trade associations that tried to intervene unsuccessfully in NAW, as well as numerous other producers facing the threat of enforcement, the parties’ agreement in Lollicup at least provides some comfort that enforcement action will likely not be initiated until there is an answer from the federal district court on the program’s constitutionality.