.svg?rev=0123a45359b34a45b72f615f84c63d11&hash=D9D267D4F8A003D6A105C987E125D147){kind=logo}
At a Glance
- A federal district court in California has issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of California’s SB 343, or “Truth in Recycling” law.
- The court held that trade association plaintiffs are likely to succeed in showing that SB 343 violates their members’ First and Fourteenth Amendment Rights.
On July 14, 2026, a federal district court in the Southern District of California issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of California Senate Bill 343 (SB 343), also known as California’s “Truth in Recycling” law. The court did not limit the injunction to the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, meaning that California cannot enforce the law against any business while the lawsuit is ongoing.
The Lawsuit against SB 343
SB 343, enacted in October 2021, sets six criteria for using the “chasing arrows” recycling symbol on a product sold in California. The compliance deadline was set for October 4, 2026.
On March 17, 2026, a coalition of trade associations representing food and packaging producers, led by the California League of Food Producers, sued California Attorney General Rob Bonta over the law. The associations claimed that SB 343 violates their members’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the US Constitution by prohibiting lawful, truthful speech and by forcing their members to comply with ambiguous criteria with insufficient notice.
For more background, you can read our previous alerts about SB 343 and this lawsuit.
The Preliminary Injunction
Judge William Q. Hayes of the US District Court for the Southern District of California granted a preliminary injunction on July 14, 2026, barring California officials from enforcing SB 343 until further order of the court.
Judge Hayes held that the organizations were likely to succeed in challenging SB 343 as facially unconstitutional, meaning that the law would be unconstitutional in all applications. First, he held that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail in showing that four provisions of the law were unconstitutionally vague, violating the Fourteenth Amendment, because of four insufficiently defined provisions. Second, Judge Hayes held that even with the vague provisions severed from the law, the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in showing that SB 343 violates their members’ First Amendment rights. He reasoned that California had not established that SB 343 directly and materially advances its substantial interests in improving recycling rates and reducing consumer confusion, and that even if the state had met that standard, the law was more expansive than necessary to serve those interests.
After deciding that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail in showing that SB 343 is unconstitutional, Judge Hayes held that the remaining preliminary injunction factors favored the plaintiffs because the loss of their commercial speech rights established irreparable harm, and the public interest favors free speech.
What This Means for Your Business
The injunction will remain in place as the lawsuit continues. If plaintiffs ultimately prevail in the lawsuit, they could win an injunction that would permanently prohibit California from enforcing the law. However, if the plaintiffs do not prevail, the injunction will dissolve. Thus, companies should continue to monitor the litigation as it progresses and consult counsel regarding any labeling decisions made while the preliminary injunction is in place.
