Court Order Blocks Enforcement of California’s SB 343 Recycling Law and Could Impact State’s Extended Producer Responsibility Program

Companies that manufacture products bearing recyclability labels have received temporary relief from impending compliance obligations. On July 14, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California issued a preliminary injunction preventing California, “the State,” from enforcing SB 343, the “Truth in Recycling” law, as litigation continues. The law was set to take effect on October 4, 2026, and the preliminary injunction could impact the implementation of SB 54, California’s Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, which establishes the State’s Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) program.

Implications for Compliance Obligations

The order pauses enforcement of SB 343’s standards for materials labeled as recyclable ahead of the October 4 effective date but does not foreclose compliance requirements if the law is subsequently upheld. Impacted companies face uncertainty regarding whether to continue modifying packaging to meet recycling requirements or to halt compliance efforts pending further developments from the court.

The preliminary injunction also raises uncertainty around the enforcement of SB 54. SB 54 establishes California’s EPR program and requires regulated producers to participate and pay into the State’s producer responsibility system, design packaging to meet recyclability criteria, and work toward State recycling goals. SB 343’s standards inform whether covered materials are considered recyclable under SB 54.

SB 343

The “Truth in Recycling” law establishes the criteria under which products and packages may be labeled recyclable in California; it includes requirements that the materials be collected by recycling programs serving at least 60% of the State’s population and be sorted into defined streams for recycling by certain facilities. The law would consider any labeling or use of symbols on packaging that indicates recyclability to constitute a deceptive or misleading claim if the law’s conditions are not met.

SB 343 Litigation and Preliminary Injunction

In March 2026, Californians for Affordable Packaging and a coalition of industry groups brought suit challenging SB 343. The lawsuit alleges that SB 343 is unconstitutionally vague and restricts commercial speech in violation of the First Amendment. The plaintiffs then sought a preliminary injunction to prohibit enforcement of the SB 343 requirements while the merits of the case are decided.

In a 67-page order, the court found that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their First Amendment claim concerning how SB 343 governs the use of the “chasing arrows” symbol and similar representations and thereby restricts free speech. The court also found the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claims that four elements of SB 343’s recyclability definition are unconstitutionally vague: the requirements (i) that material “routinely becomes feedstock”; (ii) that material be reclaimed consistently with the Basel Convention; (iii) that plastic packaging comply with the Association of Plastic Recyclers (APR) Design Guide; and (iv) that other products be designed to “ensure” and not “prevent” recyclability.

Importantly, this ruling is a preliminary injunction rather than a final decision on the constitutionality of SB 343. Additional developments will occur as litigation continues. Therefore, manufacturers making recycling claims should continue to monitor for future developments. Companies should also monitor developments affecting implementation of the State’s EPR program.

Summer associate Lexi Detrick also contributed to this posting.

This post is as of the posting date stated above. Sidley Austin LLP assumes no duty to update this post or post about any subsequent developments having a bearing on this post.