On July 14, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California issued a preliminary injunction barring the California Attorney General from enforcing Senate Bill 343 (SB 343), California’s “Truth in Recycling” law, until further order of the court. SB 343 had been scheduled to become operative on October 4, 2026, and would have significantly limited when businesses could use the chasing-arrows recycling symbol or other recyclability claims on products and packaging sold in California.
Background on SB 343
SB 343 was enacted in 2021 to address allegedly misleading recyclability claims and consumer confusion around recycling symbols. In general, the law would treat the use of the chasing-arrows symbol, recyclability statements, or similar directions to recycle as deceptive unless the product or packaging met California-specific criteria. Those criteria included collection access and sorting thresholds, design-for-recyclability requirements, and other restrictions tied to actual recycling outcomes.
Injunction Impact
The injunction temporarily relieves companies from imminent state enforcement risk under SB 343, but it does not repeal the law or resolve the litigation. The significance of the preliminary injunction is that courts generally grant this request when plaintiffs show a likelihood of success on the merits and a risk of irreparable harm if the law proceeds unabated.
The lawsuit challenging SB 343 is grounded in the constitutionality of it limiting commercial free speech. The law sets six criteria for using the “chasing arrows” recycling symbol on a product sold in California:
- It is a material that must be collected for recycling by jurisdictions that encompass at least 60 percent of California’s population and sorted into recycling streams by at least 60 percent of recycling programs statewide,
- It is composed of a material that “routinely becomes feedstock used in the production of new products or packaging,”
- It is “sent to and reclaimed at a reclaiming facility consistent with the requirements of the Basel Convention,”
- For plastic packaging, it is “designed to not include any components, inks, adhesives, or labels that prevent the recyclability of the packaging according to the APR Design Guide,” and
- For plastic products and non-plastic products and packaging, it is “designed to ensure recyclability and does not include any components, inks, adhesives, or labels that prevent the recyclability of the product or packaging.”
Court Ruling
In granting the motion, the judge ruled that provisions of SB 343 are likely unconstitutionally vague and impermissible restrictions of speech because several SB 343 provisions were likely too vague to give businesses fair notice of what compliance requires. The judge found that the “routinely becomes feedstock” requirement depends in part on downstream market conditions that manufacturers cannot control or reliably know at the time of production; that the Basel Convention requirement is similarly unclear because businesses lack a practical way to assess or confirm compliance; that SB 343’s reference to the APR Design Guide is ambiguous because the law does not explain how categories such as “Detrimental to Recycling” or “Tolerated But Needs Improvement” affect recyclability, or when compliance should be measured as the Guide changes; and that requirements to “ensure recyclability” or avoid components that “prevent recyclability” require speculation about downstream recycling activity. Based on those findings, the court ruled that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their vagueness claim and severed those provisions from SB 343.
Relationship to SB 54 Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act
This injunction also has ramifications for California’s Extended Producer Responsibility law Senate Bill 54 (SB 54), Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act. SB 54’s purpose is to create a statewide extended producer responsibility program for packaging and single-use plastic food service ware that shifts end-of-life management responsibility to producers and is intended to reduce plastic pollution, increase recycling and composting, and move covered materials toward recyclability or composability. SB 54 and SB 343 were designed to work together to address packaging and other covered material recyclability identification.
The key connection is that SB 54 relies on SB 343's recyclability criteria when determining whether certain packaging is considered recyclable. In other words, SB 343 defines what "recyclable" means, and SB 54 uses that definition when evaluating compliance with its packaging and recycling objectives. If a material does not meet the recycling requirements of SB 343, there will be significant ramifications for companies that are required to meet the requirements of SB 54.
Conclusion
The SB 343 injunction is a significant development for companies using recyclability claims on products and packaging, but it is not the end of the matter. Companies making recyclability claims should treat this as a pause, not a permanent safe harbor, and should continue monitoring the case as the trial on the merits of the case still has to occur. The court case needs to be closely followed, including any motion to modify the injunction, the ruling from the trial, and any subsequent appeal.
In this article, Gary Jones, Vice President, EHS Affairs, PRINTING United Alliance, covers the injunction issued on CA Senate Bill 343. Reach out to Gary should you have additional questions specific to how these issues may affect your business: gjones@printing.org.
To become a member of the Alliance and learn more about how our subject matter experts can assist your company with services and resources such as those mentioned in this article, please contact the Alliance membership team: 888-385-3588 / membership@printing.org.