On July 14, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California halted enforcement of California’s Truth in Recycling law (SB 343), which prohibits use of the “chasing arrows” symbols and other recyclability claims on product packaging unless the packaging meets California’s strict standards. Broadly speaking, under SB 343 an item may not be labeled recyclable unless 60% of California’s population has access to recycling facilities that can actually recycle the product (the 60/60 requirement), must “routinely become feedstock” used to produce new products, and must comply with additional design requirements. Plastic packaging, for example, must adhere to the Association of Plastic Recyclers’ Design Guide, while all products and packaging must be “designed to ensure” recyclability without components that “prevent” recyclability. A coalition of 20 trade associations challenged the law in California League of Food Producers v. Bonta. The court found the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their constitutional claims and granted a preliminary injunction barring the California attorney general (AG) from enforcing the law. Without the injunction, the labeling restrictions would have applied to products manufactured after October 4, 2026.Key findings by the district court suggest some of SB 343’s key components may not survive judicial review.
Four Provisions of SB 343 Are Likely Unconstitutionally Vague
The district court found that the trade associations are likely to succeed in showing that several key provisions of SB 343 fail to give businesses adequate notice of what the law requires in order for them to be advertised as “recyclable,” and thus are unconstitutionally vague:
- The requirement that a material “routinely becomes feedstock” for new products;
- The requirement that reclaimed materials comply with the Basel Convention;
- Incorporation of the Association of Plastic Recyclers’ (APR) Design Guide, which is unpublished and continuously evolving; and
- Undefined instructions that packaging be “designed to ensure,” and not “prevent,” recyclability.
The court found these four provisions severable from the rest of the law’s requirements for claiming materials are “recyclable.” For now, SB 343’s core “60/60 requirement,” which restricts recyclability symbols to materials that are collected by programs covering 60% of California’s population and processed by facilities serving 60% of those programs, stands.
SB 343 Likely Fails the First Amendment Commercial Speech Test
The district court found that SB 343 likely fails the four-part Central Hudson test for commercial speech restrictions. Although California identified substantial interests in improving recycling rates and reducing consumer confusion, the state failed to present evidence that the law will actually advance those interests. For example, the court noted that while SB 343 seeks to end consumer confusion, the practical effect may be the opposite: manufacturers may simply choose to forgo making any recyclability claims at all to avoid litigation risk — leaving consumers with less information than they would have without the law. The court also found that SB 343’s broad prohibition on making any recyclability claims (including truthful statements and qualified claims like “recyclable where facilities exist — check locally”) unless the product or packaging meets all of the law’s strict criteria, is more extensive than necessary, particularly where existing false-advertising laws already protect consumers from deceptive marketing claims.
Looking Ahead
For companies, this injunction may provide some breathing room since the (AG) cannot enforce SB 343 until further court order. But the ruling may be appealed and the District Court may refuse to issue a permanent injunction or rule in the plaintiffs’ favor on the merits. The California legislature may also step in and revise the law to address the court’s concerns. At the same time, a number of plaintiffs have used SB 343 to file deceptive advertising complaints in California state courts.
This case and ruling are part of a growing national conversation about how far states can go in regulating environmental marketing claims. Environmental groups and 17 state AGs have also sued CalRecycle over SB 54 (California’s extended producer responsibility (EPR) packaging law), adding another challenge to California’s product sustainability litigation efforts.