California Court Blocks Enforcement of SB 343 Recycling Law, Affecting EPR Program

Companies racing to remove "chasing arrows" and other recyclability labels from their packaging before an October 2026 deadline just got a reprieve, but one that raises as many questions as it answers. On July 14, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California issued an Order granting the California League of Food Producers' motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining the state from enforcing SB 343 until further notice because of the law's unconstitutional restriction on commercial speech. The Order casts serious doubts on the future of SB 343 and on the state's Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) program under SB 54, which relies on important concepts in SB 343 to meet recyclability targets.

SB 343's Truth in Recycling Mandate

Known as the "Truth in Recycling" law, SB 343 would, as of October 4, 2026, have prohibited the use of the "chasing arrows" symbol, other symbols indicating recyclability, or any statement claiming recyclability or directing consumers to recycle that appear on products or packaging, unless the product or packaging is collected for recycling by recycling programs encompassing 60% of California's population, is sorted into defined streams for recycling by facilities that serve 60% of recycling programs statewide, and is reclaimed consistent with the Basel Convention (the "60/60 requirement"). Failure to meet the 60/60 requirement while still making any recyclability claim would be considered a deceptive or misleading claim. SB 343 also imposes specific design and composition requirements, for example prohibiting intentionally added chemicals or PFAS at or above 100 parts per million and prohibiting the use of any components, inks, adhesives, or labels that prevent recyclability.

The SB 343 Lawsuit and Injunction

In March 2026, a coalition of industry trade associations challenged SB 343, alleging that the law unconstitutionally restricted commercial speech in violation of the First Amendment and otherwise was void for vagueness under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The court found that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of both claims. In particular, the court found that SB 343's restrictions on commercial speech failed intermediate scrutiny under the factors in Central Hudson Gas & Elec. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of N.Y., 447 U.S. 557 (1980):

• Recyclability claims are not inherently misleading and instead may be truthful depending on local recycling conditions;
• While the state had a substantial interest in reducing consumer confusion and improving recycling rates, it had failed to show how SB 343 would materially advance those interests because the state failed to produce evidence that manufacturers would redesign packaging instead of removing recyclability claims and because the removal of recyclability claims may result in more recyclable material being sent to landfills.

In its decision, the court also criticized a central part of SB 343, the Material Characterization Report, for its lack of determination of whether a product would be legally recyclable, failure to address Basel Convention compliance, and otherwise lack of guidance to producers in meeting SB 343's requirements. While the Order does not invalidate the Material Characterization Report, it casts doubt on its sufficiency and adequacy.

The SB 54 Nexus

While SB 343 did not directly address SB 54, it may have important consequences on its implementation. SB 54 establishes California's EPR program (a program that also exists in six other states) and requires regulated producers to participate and pay fees into the state's producer responsibility system, design packaging to meet recyclability and compostability targets, and otherwise help satisfy the state's recycling and source reduction targets. To show that packaging is "recyclable" to meet SB 54's targets, a producer must satisfy SB 343's labeling criteria. While the injunction prohibiting enforcement of SB 343 does not directly undermine SB 54, it raises important questions as to its implementation if the court takes further action undermining SB 343's framework. SB 54 is subject to its own lawsuits, including one filed by environmental groups arguing that the law provides broad product exemptions that defeat its purpose, and one filed by 17 states challenging SB 54's constitutionality on Dormant Commerce Clause, Free Speech, and Due Process grounds.

What This Means for Companies

Companies that make recyclability claims, including consumer product, food and beverage, packaging, and private-label retail businesses, have been preparing to strip "chasing arrows" and other recyclability labels from products before SB 343's October 4, 2026, deadline, often at significant redesign cost. This injunction pauses the immediate need for redesign, but it does not settle the question. Because a preliminary injunction is not a final ruling, companies now face a strategic decision: whether to halt compliance efforts and label changes, or continue their compliance efforts and make label changes in case the law is ultimately upheld. The ruling also introduces uncertainty into SB 54, California's Extended Producer Responsibility program, which relies on SB 343's labeling criteria—and, because six other states have their own EPR programs, may prompt companies to reassess their broader multistate compliance strategy.

+++

Olivier Jamin is counsel in DWT's Portland office and Kristi Wolff is a partner in the firm's Washington D.C., office. We are monitoring these developments closely. For questions about how this ruling may affect your recyclability claims, packaging decisions, or EPR obligations, please contact the authors or another member of our energy, natural resources & environmental team. To stay informed, sign up for our alerts.