Trade groups challenge California’s “truth in recycling” law

On March 17, 2026, a coalition of 18 industry trade associations filed a federal lawsuit challenging California’s “truth in recycling” law, commonly referred to as SB 343. The law imposes significant restrictions on recyclability labeling for products and packaging sold in California, effectively banning recyclability claims – including the “chasing arrows” symbol – for any product or packaging that does not satisfy statewide recycling criteria. The case is California League of Food Producers v. Bonta, No. 26-cv-01675 (S.D. Cal.).

Overview of the complaint

The plaintiffs – including the California League of Food Producers, California Grocers Association, California Restaurant Association, Pet Food Institute, SNAC International, Flexible Packaging Association, Dairy Institute of California, and various agricultural commissions – allege that SB 343 unconstitutionally restricts truthful commercial speech in violation of the First Amendment and is void for vagueness under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

SB 343 prohibits businesses from displaying “chasing arrows” symbols or any other statement indicating recyclability or directing consumers to recycle the product or packaging unless it meets all of the following criteria:

• The material is collected for recycling by programs serving at least 60 percent of California's population


• The material is sorted into defined recycling streams by facilities serving at least 60 percent of recycling programs statewide


• The material is reclaimed consistent with the Basel Convention


• The product meets specific design and composition requirements

The law becomes operative on October 4, 2026, which is 18 months after California’s Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) published its Material Characterization Study Final Findings. Those findings provide information to determine whether specific material types and forms satisfy the first two of the criteria above. Products and packaging manufactured after October 4 are subject to the law’s restrictions on recyclability claims.

Notably, even accurate, qualified statements such as “Recyclable where facilities exist” or “Please check locally for recycling options” are prohibited unless these thresholds are satisfied. SB 343 also requires any person who makes an “environmental marketing claim” about a consumer good, including claims that a consumer good is “recyclable,” to maintain certain written documentation to substantiate the claim and to make that documentation available to any member of the public upon request. The plaintiffs here, however, have not challenged the law’s record-keeping provisions. Instead, plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that SB 343’s speech restrictions violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting enforcement of the law. To that end, the complaint raises several significant legal arguments:

• First Amendment violations. Plaintiffs argue that SB 343 impermissibly restricts truthful, non-misleading commercial speech. They contend the law fails both strict scrutiny (applicable to content-based speech restrictions) and intermediate scrutiny under the Central Hudson test because it (1) does not directly advance California’s stated interest in reducing consumer confusion or improving recycling rates and (2) is far more extensive than necessary. Plaintiffs also allege that less restrictive alternatives exist, such as permitting qualified recyclability claims or implementing state-funded public awareness campaigns.


• Void for vagueness. Plaintiffs allege that SB 343’s criteria for determining recyclability are too ambiguous for businesses to determine with reasonable certainty whether their labeling complies with the law. They noted, for instance, that CalRecycle does not have authority to make binding determinations of compliance, the law references the Basel Convention (to which the United States is not a party) without guidance on how businesses should assess compliance, and the criteria may shift without notice as CalRecycle updates its data.


• Enforcement exposure. The complaint emphasizes that non-compliance exposes businesses to criminal penalties (up to six months’ imprisonment and $2,500 in fines per violation) and civil liability ($500 to $2,000 per violation, plus potential restitution under California’s Unfair Competition Law, which also imposes civil penalties of up to $2,500 per violation). Notably, SB 343 may be enforced not only by the Attorney General but also by district attorneys, city attorneys, and private plaintiffs, potentially creating substantial litigation risk.

Considerations for non-members of the plaintiff organizations

Companies that are not members of the plaintiff organizations may be unlikely to benefit directly from any injunction entered against enforcing the law. This is because the US Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc. (June 27, 2025) held that federal district courts generally lack authority to issue “universal injunctions” – orders that extend relief to non-parties beyond what is necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs. Under CASA, any preliminary or permanent injunction obtained in this litigation would likely protect only the plaintiff associations and their members, not the broader industry. Thus, even if the court grants injunctive relief, businesses that are not members of the plaintiff organizations could still face enforcement risk after October 4, 2026.

To benefit from any injunctive relief the plaintiffs obtain, non-member companies would need to (1) join one or more of the plaintiff associations; (2) intervene in the litigation, subject to court approval; (3) file their own lawsuit seeking similar relief; or (4) seek to participate in any class action that may be certified.

Interaction with SB 54

Whether this litigation will have a material impact on compliance obligations under SB 54, California’s EPR law for packaging, remains unclear given CalRecycle’s position that the two statutory frameworks operate independently. CalRecycle, which is tasked with administering SB 54, lacks authority to implement or enforce SB 343 and has repeatedly confirmed that a determination of recyclability under one statute does not constitute a determination of recyclability under the other. Nevertheless, these two laws rely on shared terminology and overlapping criteria for recyclability. Whether a packaging item is deemed “recyclable” under SB 54 must ultimately be determined by reference to that statute’s provisions and regulations that CalRecycle will adopt pursuant to its ordinary rulemaking authority.

Recommended steps

Given these developments, companies affected by SB 343 may wish to consider the following:

1. Assess membership status. Determine whether your company or any affiliated trade associations are members of the plaintiff organizations. Members may benefit from any injunctive relief obtained.


2. Consider association membership or intervention. If your company is not a member of any plaintiff organization and has significant exposure, consider joining one of the plaintiff associations or exploring whether intervention in the litigation is appropriate.


3. Evaluate product labeling. Conduct an audit of your current recyclability claims on products and packaging sold or distributed in California to identify potential exposure under SB 343. Businesses that are not involved in the litigation are encouraged to continue their compliance planning for SB 343.


4. Monitor litigation developments. This case is likely to move quickly given the October 4, 2026 effective date. Affected businesses may want to monitor the litigation closely for significant developments.


5. Review supply chain and vendor agreements. Evaluate whether your contracts address compliance with SB 343 and related indemnification obligations, particularly if you rely on third-party packaging suppliers.


6. Prepare contingency plans. Given the uncertainty, consider developing alternative labeling strategies in case the litigation does not result in relief before the law takes effect.


7. Assess compliance with record-keeping provisions. Because the litigation does not challenge SB 343’s record-keeping provisions, those requirements remain in effect. For each “environmental marketing claim made” (which includes any claim within the FTC Green Guides), assess whether you have the required documentation and identify steps needed to ensure compliance.

We are closely monitoring this case and are prepared to advise on compliance strategies, litigation options, and membership considerations. Access our prior alerts on SB 343 here, here, here, and here. If you have questions or concerns about the impact of this litigation or compliance under SB 343, please contact the authors.