Federal Court Blocks Enforcement Of California SB 343’s Vague, Overly Broad Restriction On Recyclability Claims

On July 14, 2026, Senior District Judge William Hayes preliminarily enjoined the California Attorney General from enforcing California Senate Bill 343 (SB 343), which broadly restricts when businesses can include recyclability claims on products and packaging.¹ The plaintiffs, 21 trade and commodity associations, filed the constitutional challenge in March 2026. In granting the motion, Judge Hayes ruled that provisions of SB 343 are likely unconstitutionally vague and impermissible restrictions of speech. This ruling allows plaintiffs and their members to continue making truthful, accurate recyclability claims without fear of prosecution, criminal punishment, or civil penalties authorized by SB 343.

SB 343 background

SB 343, signed into law in 2021, prohibits businesses from using the chasing arrows symbol commonly associated with recyclability or otherwise truthfully informing consumers that their products and packaging are recyclable—unless those products satisfy a rigid set of criteria. To be considered “recyclable” under the law, a material 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. Further, a product or packaging is only recyclable if:

• 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.”

Violation of these and other requirements carries the threat of criminal punishment and civil penalties. SB 343 is also enforceable by private parties under California’s consumer protection statutes. SB 343 is set to take effect on October 4, 2026.

California League of Food Producers et al. v. Bonta

In March 2026, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Attorney General in federal district court in San Diego challenging SB 343 as unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and as an unconstitutional restriction of commercial speech in violation of the First Amendment. California League of Food Producers v. Bonta, 3:26-cv-01675-WQH-BLM (S.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs allege that the law is unconstitutionally vague because several provisions contain ambiguous criteria that deprive businesses of notice of which materials are considered recyclable.

Plaintiffs also contend that SB 343 is an unconstitutional restriction of commercial speech under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Services Commission, 447 U.S. 557 (1980). Under Central Hudson, a restriction of commercial speech is permitted only when it “directly advances” a substantial state interest and is “not more extensive than necessary to serve that interest.” Plaintiffs allege that SB 343 cannot directly advance the state’s claimed interests of improving recycling rates and diverting recyclables from landfills because it deprives consumers of accurate and useful information that will help them properly dispose of recyclable materials. Plaintiffs also argue that SB 343 is significantly broader than necessary because it does not leave room for recyclability claims or disclaimers for materials that do not meet the law’s many requirements but are nonetheless recyclable.

Preliminary injunction granted

Judge Hayes agreed that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits, finding that provisions of SB 343 are unconstitutionally vague and that the law is an unconstitutional restriction of speech.

Judge Hayes found that four provisions of SB 343 are likely void for vagueness because they fail “to provide notice to a business of ordinary intelligence to understand what the law prohibits.” First, he concluded that compliance with the “routinely” requirement depends in part on market conditions, “which manufacturers cannot control and may not be able to ascertain at the time of production.” Second, the Basel Convention requirement is similarly problematic because businesses have no means of assessing the requirements of the Basel Convention or obtaining the information necessary to determine compliance. Indeed, the Attorney General conceded that this provision is vague at oral argument.

Third, SB 343’s reference to the APR Design Guide is ambiguous because the law does not include guidance on how recyclability categories included in the Design Guide such as “Detrimental to Recycling” and “Tolerated But Needs Improvement” inform the recyclability of packaging. Further, the Design Guide is subject to frequent changes, but SB 343 does not articulate at what point in time compliance with the Guide’s requirements should be measured. Fourth, Judge Hayes found that the requirement to “ensure recyclability” does not give businesses notice of when they have sufficiently ensured that a product or packaging is recyclable. Similarly, the prohibition on components that “prevent the recyclability” of a product is vague because it requires “speculation as to the downstream market activity that may ultimately render the material incapable of being recycled.”

Having concluded that these provisions are likely irredeemably vague, Judge Hayes ruled that plaintiffs are likely to prevail on their vagueness claim. He therefore severed these provisions from SB 343.

Judge Hayes then held that SB 343 is an unconstitutional restriction of commercial speech under Central Hudson. Judge Hayes acknowledged that the state has a substantial interest in reducing consumer confusion and improving recycling rates. However, he ruled that the Attorney General failed to put forward evidence that SB 343 furthers either interest. Rather, by broadly restricting recyclability claims even for materials that are recyclable in some cases, SB 343 deprives consumers of accurate, helpful information, increasing the risk of consumer confusion. Similarly, fewer truthful recyclability claims mean consumers will be less likely to recycle certain materials, which will instead end up in landfills, contrary to the Legislature’s intent.

Finally, Judge Hayes ruled that SB 343 ignores less restrictive alternatives. He noted that “the text of the bill indicates that SB 343 applies broadly to preclude any speech that would instruct a consumer to recycle the product or package in any manner.” As a result, products and packaging that are partially recyclable or that are recyclable in certain localities cannot be labeled as such. Without any breathing room for truthful qualified recyclability claims, businesses cannot provide accurate information to help consumers make informed decisions and divert materials away from landfills. Because plaintiffs successfully demonstrated that SB 343 is likely unconstitutional, Judge Hayes granted the preliminary injunction.

Impact

With this ruling, the Attorney General and those in privity or acting in concert with him are barred from enforcing the provisions of SB 343 against plaintiffs and their members. This victory gives plaintiffs and their members crucial relief from the threat of criminal punishment and civil penalties. They can instead continue to use accurate, truthful recyclability claims according to the longstanding standards set out in the Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides, which are incorporated into California law. This ruling also bodes well for the next phase of the case in which plaintiffs will ask the court to permanently enjoin the Attorney General from enforcing SB 343 and to declare that SB 343 is unconstitutional.

The plaintiffs in this case are California League of Food Producers, American Forest & Paper Association, California Apple Commission, California Blueberry Commission, California Grocers Association, California Restaurant Association, California Retailers Association, California Strawberry Commission, California Table Grape Commission, California Walnut Commission, Californians for Affordable Packaging, Consumer Brands Association, Dairy Institute of California, Flexible Packaging Association, Grower Shipper Association of Central California, Olive Oil Commission of California, Personal Care Products Council, Pet Food Institute, Print Creative Alliance, SNAC International, and Western Growers Association.

Footnote

1 See Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, California League of Food Producers et al. v. Bonta, No. 3-26-CV-01675 (S.D. Cal., July 14, 2026).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.