On July 14, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California issued an order enjoining enforcement of California’s “Truth-in-Recycling” law (“SB 343”). This comes almost three months before SB 343’s enforcement deadline set for October 4, 2026. SB 343, enacted in October 2021, establishes six criteria for using “chasing arrows” recycling symbols on products sold in California.
What You Need to Know:
- A federal district court in California issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of SB 343, also known as California’s “Truth-in-Recycling” law.
- The court’s preliminary injunction is not limited to the plaintiffs in the action, meaning that California cannot enforce SB 343 against any business while the lawsuit is ongoing.
- Companies can continue to monitor the litigation as it progresses, follow legislative and regulatory updates related to SB 343, and consult counsel regarding any labeling decisions while the preliminary injunction is in place.
On March 17, 2026, trade association plaintiffs (“Plaintiffs”) brought an action challenging the constitutionality of SB 343 under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. See California League of Food Producers et al. v. Bonta, Case No. 3:26-cv-01675 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2026). Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that SB 343 is (1) unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and (2) facially unconstitutional because it infringes on their members’ free-speech rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
In its recent ruling, the court held that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in showing that SB 343 violates their members’ First and Fourteenth Amendment Rights. In regards to Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment vagueness claims, the court found the following requirements of SB 343 to be impermissibly vague:
- The requirement that products or packaging “are of a material type and form that routinely become feedstock used in the production of new products or packaging”;
- The requirement that products or packaging are “sent to and reclaimed at a facility consistent with the requirements of the Basel Convention”;
- The requirement that plastic products or packaging comply with the Association of Plastic Recyclers’ APR Design Guide; and
- The requirement that products and packaging are designed to “ensure recyclability” and not “prevent” recyclability.
With respect to Plaintiffs’ First Amendment commercial speech claim, the court concluded that the state failed to demonstrate that SB 343’s restrictions would materially advance its interests in reducing consumer confusion and improving recycling rates. Further, the court reasoned that the statute was not narrowly tailored to advance the state’s interests. The court cited evidence that manufacturers could remove truthful recyclability labels rather than redesigning products or packaging to satisfy requirements under SB 343. According to the court, such a scenario could result in less information provided to consumers and lower recycling rates. The court concluded that the state’s interests could be achieved through less restrictive means than the broad prohibitions listed under the statute and that SB 343’s heightened requirements were more extensive than necessary to advance the state’s interests in improving recycling rates.
The court did not limit the injunction to the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, i.e., California cannot enforce SB 343 against any business while the lawsuit is pending.
The court’s injunction will remain in place as the lawsuit proceeds. Should Plaintiffs ultimately prevail in their lawsuit, an injunction may be issued permanently prohibiting California from enforcing SB 343. However, if the Plaintiffs do not prevail, the injunction will dissolve. To avoid potential exposure, companies can continue to monitor the litigation as it progresses, follow legislative and regulatory updates related to SB 343, and consult counsel regarding any labeling decisions while the preliminary injunction is in place.
Saul Ewing’s Environmental Practice will track developments on SB 343 as they arise. Please do not hesitate to contact the authors of this alert, or your regular Saul Ewing point(s) of contact, with any questions about the substance of this alert.
