SB 343 on Trial: Industry Lawsuit Challenges California’s ‘Truth in Recycling’ Law

At a Glance

• A coalition of food and packaging industry groups sued California’s Attorney General, challenging SB 343 (“Truth in Recycling” law) on constitutional grounds, citing compelled speech and vague requirements.
• With a regulatory compliance date of October 4, 2026, this litigation may impact a regulation that places significant burden on the food and consumer products industry.

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 over California Senate Bill 343 (SB 343), also known as California’s “Truth in Recycling” law. California League of Food Producers, et al. v. Bonta, Case No. 3:26-cv-01675 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2026). The plaintiff associations allege that SB 343 violates the constitutional rights of businesses by compelling speech and imposing unconstitutionally vague requirements. With a regulatory compliance date of October 4, 2026, this litigation may impact a regulation that places significant burden on the food and consumer products industry.

Quick Review: California SB 343

Enacted in October 2021, SB 343 establishes strict standards for manufacturers, importers, and brand owners that sell products in California for labeling products and packaging as recyclable. Importantly, SB 343 bans use of the “chasing arrows” recycling symbol on products and product packaging unless six strict criteria are met. The “chasing arrows” symbol is commonly used throughout the food and consumer products industry, and now many companies are struggling to comply with this regulation — especially since other states require chasing arrows symbols on some product packaging. All products and packaging sold in California must comply with the regulation by October 4, 2026, or face enforcement actions and civil penalties.

To display the “chasing arrows” or any recyclability indicator under SB 343, a product or its packaging must meet all six of the following criteria:

1. The material is collected for recycling by programs covering at least 60% of California’s population.
2. The material is properly sorted for recycling by facilities serving at least 60% of the population and reclaimed according to the Basel Convention.
3. The material does not include components, inks, additives, or labels that prevent recyclability.
4. The material is designed to ensure recyclability.
5. The material does not contain certain chemicals, including lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, or PFAS above 100 ppm, as specified in California regulations.
6. The material is not made from plastic or fiber with intentionally added PFAS or PFAS above 100 ppm total organic fluorine.

For manufacturers and brand owners, SB 343 creates significant compliance obligations, including redesigning packaging and labeling, potentially sourcing new packaging materials, and coordinating with suppliers to meet SB 343’s requirements.

The California League of Food Producers Lawsuit

Plaintiff associations challenging SB 343 argue that the law imposes “rigid, statewide criteria that are both vague and burdensome to apply in practice.” Complaint, ¶ 4. The associations’ complaint argues two sets of constitutional claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983:

• First Amendment Violations. The associations argue that the law prohibits lawful, truthful speech by businesses seeking to provide information about recyclability on packaging.
• Fourteenth Amendment Violations. The associations assert that the law violates the Due Process Clause by forcing business to comply with ambiguous criteria while providing insufficient notice about which materials can be designated as recyclable.

Instead of improving recycling rates, the associations argue SB 343 will cause waste volume to increase because complicated recycling labeling requirements will increase consumer confusion and cause consumers to dispose of recyclable materials in landfills or other waste-streams. Plaintiff associations requested the court to declare SB 343 unconstitutional and to enter an injunction prohibiting California from enforcing the law against plaintiff associations and their members. If the court grants that requested relief, only the plaintiff associations and their members will benefit from the injunction, and SB 343 will remain in force as to all other businesses.

With an upcoming compliance deadline of October 4, 2026, companies should be paying attention to this litigation. We will provide updates as litigation progresses.

Legal clerk Grace Rybak contributed to the preparation of this article.