• On June 3, 2026, a federal district court in California held a hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction in California League of Food Producers v. Bonta (Case No. 3:26-cv-01675, S.D. Cal.), a lawsuit filed by 21 organizations who contended that California’s SB 343, also known as the Truth in Recycling law, is unconstitutional. The court did not issue a ruling from the bench, and a written opinion is expected.
  • At issue in the lawsuit is whether California’s SB 343 violates the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The law bars any statement or symbol indicating that a product or packaging is recyclable unless the product or packaging meets stringent recycling metrics and other criteria set by the State. Plaintiffs assert that because SB 343 prohibits any symbol or claim – including truthful, qualified claims – it is facially unconstitutional. On April 24, 2026, plaintiffs asked the court to issue a preliminary injunction (PI) to halt the law’s effective date of October 4, 2026, while the case plays out.
  • The Attorney General’s May 18, 2026 opposition to plaintiff’s PI motion reflects an apparent concession that manufacturers whose products do not meet SB 343’s standards could still make some on-pack recyclability claims. The brief suggests that a qualified on-pack claim, such as “Not recyclable in most areas; check locally,” or “a QR code on the package with details regarding the product’s recyclability,” would not violate the law.
  • In their May 26, 2026 response, plaintiffs pointed out that even the AG’s interpretation could leave manufacturers vulnerable in class action litigation. According to plaintiffs, “the AG’s post hoc rationalization in this lawsuit at best merely spotlights the vagueness of the law.”
  • Industry and advocates await the court’s written opinion on plaintiffs’ PI motion, which will hopefully be issued in the coming days. A ruling on the merits of SB 343’s constitutionality will take more time, and a series of appeals is expected. SB 343’s restrictions are of crucial importance to food companies, consumer product companies, and businesses everywhere, and Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor this case closely for the initial ruling.