A coalition of 21 trade associations and commodity groups has filed a complaint seeking to enjoin enforcement of portions of California’s SB 343, also known as the “Truth in Recycling” law, which sets restrictions on how manufacturers and sellers can communicate recyclability information in California. Among other things, the statute prohibits the use of the “chasing arrows” symbol unless the material satisfies criteria set by CalRecycle, including that the material type and form is collected for recycling by programs serving at least 60% of California’s population, is sorted into defined streams for recycling by processing facilities and is sent to reclaiming facilities and reclaimed consistent with the Basel Convention. The law also requires that products meet certain design requirements. The compliance deadline for this law is October 4, 2026. The complaint alleges that these requirements in SB 343 are unconstitutional under both the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The complaint alleges that SB 343 is a content-based restriction on truthful, non-misleading commercial speech in violation of the First Amendment. Specifically, the coalition argues that the regulation is not narrowly tailored and prohibits accurate speech (that a product is in fact recyclable in many programs, even if it does not satisfy California’s standards for recyclability claims). The complaint also asserts that the law forces companies to convey a false impression that a product or packaging without a recyclability label is not recyclable, when in fact in many cases it is recyclable in certain locales in California even if it does not meet SB 343’s strict requirements. The plaintiffs argue that this will contribute to inconsistency and confusion across state lines as well, as identical packaging may be labeled recyclable in some states but not in California. Finally, the fact that these standards may change over time as CalRecycle updates its Material Characterization study will, according to the plaintiffs, further contribute to confusion and inconsistency of labeling. The complaint alleges there are a variety of less restrictive alternatives that the State could have implemented, such as requiring clarifying disclosures, pursuing enforcement against misleading advertising on a case-by-case basis, or using public education to improve understanding of recycling systems. Because the state failed to consider these options, the complaint alleges that SB 343 fails strict scrutiny. The complaint also alleges that, even under the more lenient framework for analyzing a content-neutral restriction on commercial speech, SB 343 also would fail intermediate scrutiny for similar reasons.
Plaintiffs also argue that the statute is unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Due Process Clause. According to the plaintiffs, because the statute’s definition of “recyclable” depends on evolving determinations from CalRecycle and California recycling programs, the law’s meaning is subject to change rapidly and leaves regulated entities without clear guidance on how to remain in compliance with the statute. Further, the plaintiffs point out that the most recent guidance does not provide all the information necessary to determine whether material is sent to reclaiming facilities and reclaimed consistent with the Basel Convention, and instead merely tells regulated entities that they will “require additional information” to make that determination, without explaining how the entities can obtain that information. The information in the Material Characterization Study is also alleged to be unclear and difficult for businesses to apply to their products and packaging. The complaint also notes that California’s law directly conflicts with recycling regimes in other states, particularly those state laws that require resin identification codes with the “chasing arrow” symbol.
The complaint seeks declaratory relief that the challenged portions of SB 343 are unconstitutional and an injunction prohibiting their enforcement. The case schedule has not yet been set and the plaintiffs recently amended their complaint to add three more trade associations to the coalition. Given the looming October 4, 2026 compliance deadline, many companies will likely need to make compliance decisions for their products and packaging in advance of the outcome of this litigation. We will be monitoring this case closely and are happy to discuss specific questions about how it might affect your business.