Federal Lawsuit Challenges California’s ‘Truth in Recycling’ Law as Compliance Deadline Nears

A group of plaintiffs representing various trade associations and industry groups filed a lawsuit on March 17, 2026 challenging the constitutionality of California’s “Truth in Recycling” law, which is set to take effect on October 4, 2026.

In their complaint, the plaintiffs seek a declaration that the law, also known as SB 343, violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution because of its prohibition on the use of the “chasing arrows” symbol or other indicia of recyclability on products and packaging in California, unless certain state-wide recycling thresholds are met.

The plaintiffs seek a declaration that the law is unconstitutional and a preliminary and permanent injunction against its enforcement, highlighting the significant compliance hurdles the law poses to food, packaging, and consumer product industries and the significant civil and criminal penalties the law subjects them to if they fail to comply.

THE COMPLAINT

The plaintiffs, a coalition of 18 food and packaging industry groups, filed their complaint in the US District Court for the Southern District of California against Rob Bonta in his official capacity as the attorney general of California. The plaintiffs allege that the law violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution by prohibiting businesses from “truthfully informing consumers that their products and packaging are recyclable,” unless “rigid, statewide criteria that are both vague and burdensome” are met.

The plaintiffs further allege that the law is unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because its “ambiguous criteria . . . deprive businesses of notice as to which materials are considered recyclable or not.”

THE REQUIREMENTS OF SB 343

To be considered recyclable, SB 343 requires that products and packaging meet both specific design and composition requirements and collection and processing thresholds. Of note, a product or packaging must be collected by recycling programs encompassing at least 60% of the population of California, as well as be “sorted into defined streams for recycling processes” by at least 60% of recycling programs in California.

These last two requirements are often referred to as the “60/60 threshold.” Notably, the burden is on businesses to determine whether their specific products or packaging meet those thresholds by reference to a Material Characterization Study published by CalRecycle.

FIRST AMENDMENT CHALLENGE

The plaintiffs allege that the law is content-based regulation of lawful speech that is not narrowly tailored and would create confusion among both businesses and consumers, as otherwise recyclable materials may no longer be labeled “recyclable” and instead must be disposed of in landfills. Moreover, by not considering less restrictive alternatives, including allowing businesses to provide qualified statements or clarifying disclosures about a material’s recyclability, the plaintiffs contend that SB 343 is not the “least restrictive means” of achieving California’s interests.

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT CHALLENGE

The plaintiffs further argue that the law’s requirements for “recyclability” deprive businesses of notice as to which materials may be considered recyclable or not. For example, the law requires that materials meet certain requirements under the Basel Convention, but neither the law nor the implementing regulations explain what compliance under the Basel Convention means.

The plaintiffs contend that the law’s vague criteria raise significant compliance issues for businesses and subject them to severe civil and criminal punishments if they get compliance wrong.

IMPLICATIONS

California League of Food Producers et al. v. Bonta highlights the significant compliance concerns that have arisen since the passage of SB 343 in late 2021. In addition to placing the burden on companies, not the agency, for determining a material’s recyclability, companies are obligated to maintain meticulous records to demonstrate compliance and defend their decisions if challenged. For products and packaging that do not meet the law’s recyclability criteria, businesses must alter current labeling to omit any claims of recyclability.

As the party carrying the risk of compliance under SB 343, businesses must be aware of the significant litigation risks the law presents. Noncompliance under SB 343 exposes a business to not only the law’s monetary penalties but also consumer class actions over false labeling, packaging, and advertising claims. Indeed, CalRecycle’s recently released Material Characterization Study has been cited in recent consumer class action lawsuits in California. [1]

Finally, businesses should note SB 343’s fast-approaching compliance deadline. The release of CalRecycle’s Material Characterization Study triggered the law’s 18-month countdown to the statutory compliance date of October 4, 2026. As noted above, the plaintiffs have requested that the court enjoin enforcement of the law, but it is unclear if or when the court might do so.

HOW WE CAN HELP

Our lawyers stand ready to advise businesses on these upcoming recyclability requirements and assisting them in ensuring their practices comply with these significant and novel requirements.