Federal Court Enjoins Enforcement of California’s SB 343 Recyclability Labeling Restrictions

Just months before California was set to begin enforcing SB 343’s recyclability labeling restrictions, a federal court issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the law by California's Attorney General pending further litigation. In California League of Food Producers v. Bonta, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California held that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on both their constitutional vagueness claims and their First Amendment challenge, enjoining Attorney General Rob Bonta and those acting in concert with him from enforcing the statute. The decision is a significant development for companies that have been preparing for SB 343’s October 2026 enforcement date.

Background

Enacted in 2021, SB 343 restricts the circumstances under which products and packages may be marketed as recyclable in California. Among other things, the law provides that the use of the chasing arrows symbol and other recyclability claims may be deemed deceptive unless the product or package satisfies a detailed set of statutory criteria, including that the materials be collected by recycling programs encompassing 60 percent of the state’s population and be processed by facilities that serve 60 percent of recycling programs statewide (which the court refers to as the statute’s “60/60” standard). The law directed CalRecycle to publish standards (in the form of a “Material Characterization Study”) regarding what sorts of material types/forms meet certain criteria under the law to be considered recyclable. The statute also includes additional requirements relating to whether materials “routinely become feedstock,” compliance with the Basel Convention, adherence to the APR Design Guide, and product design features affecting recyclability. 

The recyclability labeling restrictions were scheduled to become enforceable on October 4, 2026, following the expiration of the statute’s 18-month grace period tied to publication of the Material Characterization Study. But in March, a number of industry associations filed a complaint against the state of California, seeking prospective declaratory and injunctive relief on the grounds that SB 343 violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

The Court's Findings

This month, the court issued an order granting the plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction against California's Attorney General, concluding that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on both their constitutional vagueness claims and their First Amendment challenge.

First, the court found that several key provisions of SB 343 are likely unconstitutionally vague, including the requirements that a material “routinely becomes feedstock,” that materials be processed at facilities consistent with the Basel Convention, that plastic packaging comply with the APR Design Guide, and that products be designed to “ensure” recyclability and not “prevent” recyclability. According to the court, those provisions fail to provide businesses with sufficient notice of what the law requires and, in some cases, depend on evolving standards, downstream recycling practices, or market conditions that may be outside a manufacturer's control. 

The court also concluded that plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their First Amendment challenge, finding that recyclability claims are not inherently misleading and therefore receive First Amendment protection. While California asserted interests in reducing consumer confusion and improving recycling rates, the court found that the state had not shown that SB 343 would materially advance those objectives. Instead, the court pointed to evidence suggesting that companies may respond by removing recyclability claims altogether rather than redesigning products or packaging to satisfy the statute's requirements, potentially leaving consumers with less information rather than more. 

The court further concluded that SB 343 broadly restricts qualified recyclability claims that may be truthful and useful to consumers and that less restrictive alternatives could be available. As a result, the court determined that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the statute impermissibly restricts protected commercial speech. 

Although the court found that plaintiffs were likely to succeed in challenging several provisions of the statute, it also held that those provisions are severable. As a result, portions of the statute could potentially survive even if the challenged provisions are ultimately invalidated. 

What Now?

For now, enforcement of SB 343 – at least by the California Attorney General – is on hold. The injunction prevents Attorney General Bonta and those acting in concert with him from enforcing the law while the litigation proceeds. 

The law is still on the books, however, and could potentially be enforced by local California authorities.  Private plaintiffs could sue for false advertising as well, using existing California false advertising and consumer protection laws.   

Companies that had been preparing for the October 2026 enforcement date may welcome the court’s ruling, but recyclability claims (and environmental marketing claims more generally) are likely to remain an active area of scrutiny.