Court Grants Preliminary Injunction in California Truth in Recycling Law Challenge

Consumer products companies have long anticipated California’s “Truth in Recycling law,” SB 343, taking effect on October 4, 2026. The law places restrictions on what materials can be labeled as “recyclable” in California. On July 14, 2026, a judge in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted a motion by a coalition of trade associations for a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of SB 343 until further order of the court. We take a closer look at the ruling below.

The Lawsuit: In March, a coalition of 18 trade organizations sued the California Attorney General in California League of Food Producers v. Bonta to block enforcement of SB 343. The trade organizations allege that SB 343 (1) is unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment, and (2) infringes on trade organization members’ free speech rights under the First Amendment. In April, plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction, seeking to enjoin enforcement of SB 343’s prohibition on communicating the recyclability of a product or packaging.

The Opinion: In a detailed 67-page opinion, the court granted the motion for a preliminary injunction. Key holdings include the following:

• Trade association plaintiffs have standing to sue: First, the court determined the trade associations have associational standing to sue because the threatened enforcement of SB 343 constitutes an injury in fact to their members that is traceable to the Attorney General’s enforcement of the law, and an injunction would provide their members redress from the threat of SB 343 enforcement. The court also held that the trade associations’ missions are related to the interests at issue in the action, and that participation of individual members was not necessary given that only declaratory and injunctive relief is sought.
• Plaintiffs have a likelihood of success in proving portions of SB 343 are unconstitutionally vague: Examining plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment claims, the court determined that plaintiffs are likely to prevail in establishing that four provisions of SB 343 are constitutionally vague, including (1) the requirement that any product/packaging labeled as recyclable in the state be “of a material type and form that routinely becomes feedstock used in the production of new products or packaging;” (2) the requirement that material labeled “recyclable” must be sorted into recycling streams “sent to and reclaimed at a reclaiming facility consistent with the requirement of the Basel Convention”; (3) SB 343’s incorporation of the APR Design® Guide for determining which components, inks, adhesives, or labels may prevent the recyclability of packaging; and (4) the requirement that products and packaging be designed to “ensure” recyclability and not include any components, inks, adhesives, or labels that “prevent” the recyclability of the product or packaging. Of note, though, the court also found that these provisions are severable from the remainder of SB 343, indicating that at least portions of SB 343 are likely to survive plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment challenge.
• Plaintiffs have a likelihood of success in proving that SB 343 does not advance California’s stated objectives, which could be achieved by less restrictive means: With respect to the First Amendment, the court determined that SB 343 regulates commercial speech, making the law subject to intermediate scrutiny. The court then concluded that the record did not support a finding that the law advances the government’s stated interests of reducing consumer confusion and improving recycling rates. The court was persuaded by plaintiffs’ contention that SB 343 causes association members to omit truthful statements regarding recyclability from their products and packaging, resulting in materials that would otherwise be recycled going to a landfill. Further, the court noted that the state presented no evidence to support its argument that SB 343 will improve recycling rates, and that the evidence in the record was conflicting as to whether consumers would receive a greater amount of accurate information on the recyclability. Finally, the court determined that California could achieve its stated interests by using less restrictive means than SB 343 currently provides.
• Plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable harm and the balance of equities weighs in their favor. Finally, the court concluded that plaintiffs’ members’ loss of their First Amendment freedoms established irreparable harm, that a First Amendment challenge raising serious questions tipped the equities in Plaintiffs’ favor, and that the public interest favors the exercise of free-speech rights.

Implications: The court broadly enjoined California’s Attorney General and all those in privity or acting in concert with him from enforcing SB 343 until further order of the court. It remains to be seen whether the state will seek reconsideration or clarification on the breadth of the injunction. Given that there is plenty of legal fight left in this battle, it would nonetheless behoove affected companies to continue their preparations to comply with SB 343’s requirements in the event that the injunction is modified or eventually lifted.

*             *             *

Our team at Arnold & Porter will continue watching California League of Food Producers v. Bonta and other legal challenges that impact state-level regulation of consumer product packaging closely. If you have any questions about SB 343 or the preliminary injunction, please reach out to any of the authors.

© Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 2026 All Rights Reserved. This Blog post is intended to be a general summary of the law and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.