Preliminary Injunction Enjoins Trade Organization Plaintiff Group Against Enforcement Under California’s “Truth In Labeling” Law

On July 14, 2026, a federal judge in California granted a preliminary injunction blocking upcoming enforcement of Senate Bill 343 (SB 343), California’s “Truth in Labeling” law. This judicial action stems from a request for injunctive relief brought as part of a challenge to the law earlier this year. Enforcement of SB 343 is set to begin October 4, 2026.

SB 343 Background

SB 343 was approved on October 5, 2021. The law directs the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to take a variety of actions, including creation and implementation of enforceable standards restricting what products can be labeled as recyclable and the language the labels use. The law uses comparatively stringent standards that limit use of recyclability language on labels to products that can actually be recycled by at least 60 percent of the state’s residents. These labeling requirements, beginning on the enforcement date, prohibit the sale into or distribution within the state if products that are not deemed recyclable include labels with “chasing arrows” or other recyclability symbols or language. The law is intended to improve accuracy of labels and transparency to consumers.

Other directives under the law require CalRecycle to track and publish data about recycling rates in the state and types of materials that are recycled. CalRecycle includes additional information and guidance regarding SB 343 on its “Accurate Recycling Labels” website.

Suit Against SB 343

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 and seeking an injunction against enforcement for the plaintiff trade associations’ member companies when the labeling requirements come into effect this October. California League of Food Producers v. Bonta raises compliance issues due to the claimed vagueness/ambiguity of the law and First Amendment issues.

Unconstitutional Vagueness

The plaintiffs bring four primary rationales under this theory:

• Businesses do not always know if a material “routinely” becomes a feedstock used for the creation of other packaging or products;

• Businesses do not have sufficient information on whether products are being disposed of or sent to disposal facilities operating consistently within the requirements of the Basel Convention;

• Businesses do not have sufficient information to know whether materials used contain elements that would impair their recyclability according to the Association of Plastics Recyclers’ Design Guide; and

• Under the statute as written, businesses cannot know whether products or materials are designed to “ensure recyclability.”

First Amendment Issues

The plaintiffs contend that the law unconstitutionally restricts commercial speech under existing Supreme Court precedent. The parties do not dispute that SB 343 regulates commercial speech. Regulation of commercial speech is subject to intermediate scrutiny under the Central Hudson factors, the four-part legal standard set by the Supreme Court in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation v. Public Service Commission of New York. The court considered all four prongs of the Central Hudson Test, specifically evaluating:

• Inherently misleading speech;

• Substantial government interests;

• Advancing government interests; and

• Narrow tailoring.

On April 24, 2026, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction. The defendants filed opposition, and the plaintiffs filed a response to the opposition.

Preliminary Injunction

A preliminary injunction is a remedy that is only awarded in narrow situations wherein plaintiffs can establish four elements. The remedy itself is not a complete bar against compliance under the law but rather suspends enforcement or application of the law to the parties seeking relief while the case is ongoing, protecting parties that would be affected or even harmed by enforcement of the law until the court makes a decision.

A court may, in its discretion, grant a preliminary injunction if the plaintiff demonstrates the following:

• Likelihood of success on the merits (based on the facts alleged in the complaint, the plaintiff demonstrates a strong chance that its legal argument will prevail);

• Without a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff will suffer “irreparable harm” during the span of time in which the case is decided;

• Considering all equitable factors, it is more equitable than not to grant relief to the plaintiff; and

• Granting the injunction would be in the interest of the public.

The Order granting the preliminary injunction finds that the plaintiff meets the above elements.

Commentary

Although the court’s Order is limited to preliminary injunctive relief, the decision is significant because it calls into question portions of California’s broader approach to regulating recyclability claims. The court concluded that the plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on both their constitutional vagueness and commercial speech claims, suggesting that at least some aspects of SB 343 may ultimately face heightened judicial scrutiny as the litigation proceeds. The merits of those claims, however, remain to be decided.

For companies, the decision does not eliminate compliance obligations altogether. Rather, it creates an uncertain regulatory landscape in the months leading up to the October 4, 2026, enforcement date. Companies that are members of the plaintiff trade associations may receive the benefit of the injunction, while businesses outside those organizations should carefully evaluate whether they remain subject to enforcement and continue monitoring developments in the litigation, including any appeal.