On July 14, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California issued a preliminary injunction in California League of Food Producers v. Bonta (California League), blocking enforcement of Senate Bill 343 (SB 343), California’s “Truth in Recycling” law. The California legislature enacted SB 343 on October 5, 2021, taking aim at the question of whether products labeled as recycled are really recycled in California. Five years and several regulatory phases later, the recyclability criteria under SB 343 were set to apply to products and packaging manufactured after October 4, 2026. The order now bars California Attorney General Rob Bonta, and all those in privity or acting in concert, from enforcing SB 343 while the litigation proceeds.
SB 343
SB 343 amended (and constricted) the criteria for what products are considered recyclable in California. Products or packaging may be recyclable if they are of a material type and form that:
- Are accepted by collection by jurisdiction recycling programs that collectively serve at least 60 percent of the California population;
- Are sorted into defined streams by large volume transfer/processing facilities that: (a) serve collectively at least 60 percent of recycling programs statewide; and (b) send them to a reclaimer and reclaim them consistent with the Basel Convention; and
- Satisfy specific composition and design limitations.
In tandem, the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) must issue a “material characterization study” every five years that provides information to manufacturers on “what” is collected and processed for recycling in California. Companies then have 18 months to conform their products and packaging to SB 343’s criteria. After that, companies cannot sell, distribute, or import any products or packaging that are not deemed “recyclable” in California that provide any deceptive or misleading claims about recyclability. That includes labels with the well-known “chasing arrows” or other recyclability symbols. The law is intended to improve accuracy of labels and transparency to consumers.
CalRecycle includes additional information and guidance regarding SB 343 on its “Accurate Recycling Labels” website.
SB 343 Litigation
On March 17, 2026, a coalition of 18 groups, including the Flexible Packaging Association (FPA) and the California League of Food Producers (CLFP), filed suit against California’s Attorney General, challenging SB 343. The plaintiffs allege that provisions of SB 343 infringe on protections for commercial speech and are unconstitutionally vague under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. On April 24, 2026, the plaintiffs filed a motion to enjoin the California Attorney General from enforcing SB 343 when the labeling restrictions take effect in October.
The July 2026 order bars enforcement of SB 343 until further order of the court. The court held that the plaintiffs met the legal standard for a preliminary injunction, having demonstrated that: (1) they are likely to succeed on the merits; (2) they are likely to suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief; (3) the balance of equities tip in their favor; and (4) the injunction is in the public interest.
The most important factor of the above, as the court noted, is whether the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their vagueness and First Amendment challenges. The court’s holdings are summarized briefly below.
Unconstitutional Vagueness
The plaintiffs contend that there are four provisions of SB 343 that are unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment, which requires laws and regulations to give fair notice of conduct that is prohibited or required. Due process requires the invalidation of laws that are impermissibly vague or that fail to establish standards for enforcement. The plaintiffs assert that:
- Businesses cannot know whether a material “routinely becomes a feedstock” used in the production of other packaging or products;
- Businesses cannot know whether materials will be sent to disposal facilities consistent with the requirements of the Basel Convention;
- Businesses cannot know whether materials contain elements that would impair their recyclability according to the APR Design® Guide for Plastics Recyclability published by the Association of Plastics Recyclers; and
- Businesses cannot know whether products and non-plastic packaging are “designed to ensure recyclability” and do not include any components, inks, adhesives, or labels that prevent recyclability.
The court found that the plaintiffs’ constitutionality concerns regarding fair notice and standardless enforcement were heightened due to the statutory scheme that also authorizes civil enforcement actions by private actors and criminal enforcement by local district attorneys. In considering this and other factors, the court agreed that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on each of their four vagueness challenges.
Restrictions on Commercial Speech
The plaintiffs allege that SB 343’s regulation of the “environmental marketing claims” businesses can make about their products and packaging impermissibly restricts commercial speech. Courts evaluate whether a law infringes on commercial speech using a four-part “test” established by the Supreme Court, known as the Central Hudson test. This includes (1) whether the speech is protected; (2) whether the governmental interest is substantial; (3) whether the regulation directly advances that interest; and (4) if the regulation is more extensive than necessary or “narrowly tailored” to serve that interest.
The court recognized that California has a substantial interest in improving recycling rates and reducing consumer confusion, but the record failed to show that SB 343’s requirements directly and materially advance these interests. The court also considered the risk that companies will omit recyclability claims for fear of enforcement actions, leaving consumers with “less information than they would receive in the absence of SB 343’s regulatory scheme.” The law’s heightened requirements for recyclability could thereby limit, rather than increase, the flow of information to consumers in making informed choices, establishing restrictions more extensive than necessary to serve California’s interests.
Commentary
Although the court’s order is limited to preliminary injunctive relief and the law remains on the books pending further litigation, it calls into question the constitutionality of California’s approach in SB 343. Recognizing the important goal of increasing consumer confidence in recyclability claims, the court questions whether SB 343 achieves this aim, finding the record “contains conflicting information as to whether SB 343 will actually provide consumers with a greater amount of accurate information regarding the recyclability of products and packages.” Any unconstitutional parts of the law will be severable from the remaining text of the bill, meaning that if the court ultimately strikes portions of SB 343, other provisions, such as the “60/60” collection and sorting framework described as the law’s “backbone,” may remain intact.
Beyond SB 343, this case has sparked discussions about the scope of preliminary injunctions and the potential implications of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831 (2025) (CASA). While CASA established meaningful limits on non-party relief when federal courts issue injunctions, district courts and stakeholders alike are still trying to discern the size of its shadow. The court’s order in California League answers some questions while generating new ones. Seemingly answered is the question of who is covered by the injunction: the court’s broader order does not limit the injunctive relief to the plaintiffs and their member companies. Seemingly unanswered is who can enforce the law. While the court was keenly aware of SB 343’s multiple enforcement fronts, it is unclear whether private individuals or local government actors are also enjoined by the order.
What does this mean for companies that were preparing for SB 343’s October 4, 2026, effective date? In sum, CalRecycle issued its first Material Characterization Report on April 4, 2025, kicking off the 18-month “grace period” for companies to comply with the law’s labeling restrictions. A few months shy of this deadline, the court has enjoined the California Attorney General’s enforcement of the law statewide. This will remain in place until further order of the court. Stakeholders should continue monitoring developments in the litigation and keep apprised of major developments, including any potential appeals.