"Oregon's current approach places a disproportionate burden on products packaged in glass, even as glass has long been one of the state's recycling success stories," said Courtney Armour, Chief Legal Officer of DISCUS.
The wine industry's fight over extended producer responsibility is heading for a reckoning. The Distilled Spirits Council of the United States and the Wine Institute filed an amicus brief in a federal case challenging Oregon's packaging EPR law, the first state to collect packaging fees under its 2025 program, arguing the law places a disproportionate burden on products sold in glass. A preliminary injunction granted February 6, 2026 shields National Association of Wholesalers members from the fees while dormant Commerce Clause and Due Process claims remain for trial.
"Wine and spirits producers support meaningful recycling and sustainability policies, but those policies must be fair, workable and grounded in how these products are actually made, packaged and sold," said Courtney Armour, Chief Legal Officer of DISCUS. "Oregon's current approach places a disproportionate burden on products packaged in glass, even as glass has long been one of the state's recycling success stories."
Why glass pays eight times more
The core grievance is arithmetic. EPR fees are driven by packaging weight, and a 750ml glass bottle can face fees more than eight times higher than the same-size plastic bottle, according to the trade groups. Glass wine bottles have no realistic alternative: wine is sold in glass for reasons of chemistry, tradition and consumer expectation, so the fee functions less as an incentive to redesign packaging and more as a tax on being a winery.
The trade groups also point to structural favoritism. Small-producer exemptions and bottle-bill provisions favor in-state producers, they argue, while out-of-state wineries shipping into Oregon pay full freight. A wine in a can received a bottle-bill refund value under Oregon's HB 4013 starting July 1, 2025, while glass wine bottles fall under the EPR producer responsibility organization's plans, only containers with refund value are exempt.
The national dominoes
Oregon is the bellwether, but the map is filling in. Colorado's program launches in summer 2026, California's fee structure is expected to follow, and Maryland, Minnesota and Washington have designated producer responsibility organizations of their own. The Circular Action Alliance serves as the designated PRO across Oregon, California, Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington, which means the fee schedules and reporting systems wineries build for Oregon will likely template the rest.
The National Association of Wholesalers sued in July 2025, and the case's outcome will signal to every other state how far EPR can go in taxing packaging weight. If the dormant Commerce Clause claims survive to trial and succeed, state EPR programs could face redesign. If they fail, wineries should expect weight-based fees to become a permanent line item in every state that adopts them.
What wineries should do now
The immediate move is registration and data. Producer responsibility organizations require detailed packaging reports, and wineries that have not inventoried their bottle weights, closures and shippers by SKU will struggle to comply. The longer move is packaging strategy: lighter bottles, already attractive for freight and carbon reasons, now carry a direct regulatory dividend. Every gram removed from a bottle is a fee avoided, in Oregon today and in a growing list of states tomorrow.