California Court Blocks Enforcement of SB 343 "Truth in Recycling" Law

On July 14, 2026, in California League of Food Producers, et al. v. Bonta, the US District Court for the Southern District of California granted a preliminary injunction barring California Attorney General Rob Bonta, and those in privity or acting in concert with him, from enforcing SB 343, California's novel "Truth in Recycling" law.

SB 343, enacted in 2021, amended California law (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 42355.51) to restrict when a product or packaging may be labeled or marketed as recyclable. For purposes of the court's analysis, SB 343 provides that a product or packaging displaying the chasing arrows symbol or otherwise indicating recyclability is deemed deceptive or misleading unless it is considered recyclable under the statute and is of a material type and form that routinely becomes feedstock used in the production of new products or packaging.

Among other requirements, SB 343 provides that a product or packaging is considered recyclable in California only if:

1. the material type and form is collected for recycling by programs serving jurisdictions that collectively encompass at least 60 percent of California's population;
2. the material type and form is sorted into defined streams for recycling processes by "large volume transfer or processing facilities" that collectively serve at least 60 percent of recycling programs statewide;
3. the defined streams are sent to and reclaimed at a reclaiming facility consistent with the requirements of the Basel Convention;
4. any plastic packaging does not include components, inks, adhesives, or labels that prevent recyclability according to the APR Design® Guide;
5. plastic products and non-plastic products and packaging are designed to ensure recyclability and do not include components, inks, adhesives, or labels that prevent recyclability;
6. the material does not contain certain chemicals identified pursuant to Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 42370.2(g)(4); and
7. the material is not made from plastic or fiber containing perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) meeting specified criteria.

The labeling restrictions were set to take effect on October 4, 2026, following the 18-month grace period triggered by CalRecycle's April 4, 2025 publication of its SB 343 material characterization study. Enforcement of SB 343 is now preliminarily enjoined while the case proceeds toward a decision on the merits.

Below, we provide additional information on the challenge, the court's rationale for issuing the preliminary injunction, and what the court's order may mean in practice.

I. The Challenge

On April 7, 2026, a coalition of trade associations representing food, packaging, retail, and consumer-products industries (Plaintiffs) filed a first amended complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging SB 343. Plaintiffs' complaint challenged SB 343 as (1) unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment and (2) facially unconstitutional because it infringes on their members' free speech rights under the First Amendment.

With respect to the Fourteenth Amendment vagueness challenge, Plaintiffs argued that four specific features of SB 343 fail to give businesses fair notice of what the law requires:

1. Whether the material "routinely becomes feedstock" for new products (an undefined threshold, dependent on shifting market conditions);
2. Whether the material reaches a reclaiming facility consistent with the Basel Convention (an international agreement the US has signed but never ratified, with no defined compliance standard);
3. Whether the material complies with the APR Design® Guide published by the Association of Plastic Recyclers (a standard designed to "grow as the recycling system and packaging technologies evolve"); and
4. Whether the products and non-plastic packaging are designed to "ensure" recyclability and do not include components that "prevent" recyclability (terms the law never defines).

With respect to the First Amendment claim, Plaintiffs argued that SB 343 unconstitutionally restricts truthful commercial speech about recyclability by effectively prohibiting qualified or partial recyclability claims, causing the law to fail intermediate scrutiny under Central Hudson.

II. The Court's Rationale for the Injunction

The court found that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on both their vagueness and First Amendment theories.

The court agreed that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their vagueness challenges to all four challenged provisions, although the court's reasoning varied by provision. The court also concluded that each challenged provision is severable from the remaining text of SB 343. In reaching that conclusion, the court emphasized the centrality of the statute's "60/60" framework, under which materials must be collected by recycling programs serving jurisdictions encompassing at least 60 percent of California's population and sorted by facilities collectively serving at least 60 percent of recycling programs statewide. The severability ruling means that the 60/60 framework may remain central to the statute even if the challenged provisions are ultimately invalidated, but enforcement of SB 343 is preliminarily enjoined for now.

As to the free speech challenge, the court found that recyclability claims are commercial speech that is only "potentially misleading," not inherently misleading, and therefore entitled to First Amendment protections. Although the court recognized California's substantial interest in improving recycling rates and reducing consumer confusion, the court concluded that the state had not shown that SB 343 would directly and materially advance those interests. The record suggested the more likely effect is that manufacturers will simply drop recyclability claims altogether to avoid liability, which could increase, not decrease, landfill volume and consumer confusion. Even setting that aside, the court found that the law is not narrowly tailored as it bars qualified, truthful, partial recyclability statements that would let consumers make informed decisions without banning speech outright. Less restrictive alternatives were available.

Because Plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success on their First Amendment claim, the court found that they were likely to suffer irreparable harm, that the balance of equities favored preliminary relief, and that an injunction was in the public interest. Accordingly, the court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of SB 343.

III. Practical Implications

What are some of the implications of this preliminary injunction?

1. Enforcement is halted, not the law itself. SB 343 has not been struck down or repealed, and the case will proceed toward a decision on the merits. The injunction expressly binds Attorney General Bonta and "all those in privity or acting in concert with" him, clearly barring Attorney General enforcement while the injunction remains in effect. Whether other actors may seek to enforce or rely upon SB 343 is more nuanced. Local governmental actors, including district attorneys, cities, and counties, would likely face substantial obstacles in attempting to enforce SB 343 during the injunction period, particularly because the court's order was directed at enforcement of the statute and rested on likely facial constitutional defects. Private-party claims present a different and potentially harder question: the order does not expressly address whether private claims predicated on SB 343 remain available while enforcement of the statute is enjoined. Even so, defendants in such actions would have meaningful arguments that claims seeking relief based on alleged violations of SB 343 are limited or precluded by the court's reasoning and injunction.
2. The October 4, 2026 compliance date is paused for Attorney General enforcement purposes. While the injunction remains in place, businesses should not face enforcement by the Attorney General or those acting in privity or concert with him for failure to alter recyclability labeling to comply with SB 343. As noted above, attempts by other actors to enforce or rely on SB 343 would raise additional issues and likely would be subject to significant defenses.
3. The 60/60 framework remains central to the statute. The court concluded that the challenged provisions are severable and emphasized the central role of the 60/60 collection-and-sorting framework. Companies should not assume that the broader SB 343 recyclability framework has disappeared permanently, even though enforcement of SB 343 is preliminarily enjoined for now.
4. The four challenged provisions remain the most vulnerable. The court found Plaintiffs likely to succeed on their vagueness challenges to the "routinely becomes feedstock" requirement, the Basel Convention reference, the APR Design Guide provision, and the "ensure/prevent" recyclability language. These provisions are the most likely candidates for further judicial invalidation, legislative amendment, or regulatory clarification if California seeks to preserve enforceability.
5. False or misleading labeling claims remain possible under other statutes. The injunction does not immunize deceptive recyclability claims generally. California's general false advertising, unfair competition, and consumer protection statutes may still be invoked to challenge recyclability claims that are independently false or misleading. A different question addressed above is whether public or private plaintiffs may use alleged noncompliance with SB 343 itself as the predicate for liability while enforcement of SB 343 is enjoined.
6. Further proceedings are likely. The state may seek appellate review or continue litigating the merits in the district court. The injunction is not a final resolution, and the practical landscape could change as the case proceeds.

In short, companies have meaningful breathing room while the preliminary injunction remains in effect, but SB 343 has not been finally invalidated, and the scope of any non-Attorney General enforcement efforts remains an important issue to monitor. Companies should continue to evaluate recyclability claims under generally applicable false advertising, unfair competition, and consumer protection principles. Steptoe LLP will continue to monitor developments closely. Please contact us with any questions.