The Nickel Report

On July 14, 2026, a federal court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining California Attorney General (AG) Rob Bonta and “all those in privity or acting in concert with” him from enforcing California’s Truth in Recycling Law, SB 343. While this decision is favorable for the plaintiff organizations and their members, it raises additional questions for non-plaintiff companies attempting to navigate these novel and complex environmental compliance requirements.

Background

SB 343 is an environmental advertising law that imposes restrictions on use of the chasing arrows symbol and other recyclability claims. Specifically, any product or packaging that displays a chasing arrows symbol is deemed to be a deceptive or misleading claim unless (1) the product or packaging is considered recyclable under California recyclability criteria and (2) is of a material type and form that “routinely becomes feedstock” used in the production of new products or packaging.

Under SB 343, a product or packaging is recyclable if it is (1) collected for recycling programs encompassing 60 percent of California’s population and (2) sorted into defined streams for recycling by facilities that serve 60 percent of recycling programs statewide consistent with the Basel Convention. This is referred to as the “60/60 requirement.”

SB 343 also imposes design standards for all recyclable products and packaging, including the requirement that all products and packaging are designed consistent with the APR Design Guide, in such a way to “ensure” recyclability, and to not include any material or component that will “prevent” recyclability.

SB 343 would have applied to all manufacturers starting on October 4, 2026.

California League of Food Producers et al. v. Bonta

A group of trade associations challenged the validity of SB 343 in federal court, arguing that certain provisions are unconstitutionally vague and that the law infringes on First Amendment protections for commercial speech. See California League of Food Producers et al. v. Bonta, 3:26-cv-01675-WQH0JAC (S.D. Cal. filed on Mar. 17, 2026). In April 2026, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction.

Ultimately, the court determined that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their vagueness and First Amendment claims and thus granted the motion.

          Vagueness

The plaintiffs alleged that the following requirements for recyclable products and packaging are unconstitutionally vague:

• Must “routinely” become feedstock
• Must be sorted consistent with the Basel Convention
• Must be designed consistent with the APR Design Guide
• Must be designed to “ensure” recyclability and not include anything that will “prevent” recyclability

For all four of these requirements, the court determined that no reasonable business could discern what the law demands and whether its products comply with such demands. In coming to this conclusion, the court noted that the statute neither provided guidance nor authorized the relevant state agency to implement necessary guidance. Additionally, the court noted that these requirements are not only subject to different interpretations but are also dependent on downstream activities that producers cannot control or reliably predict.

         First Amendment

The court determined that, while California has substantial interests in improving recycling rates and reducing consumer confusion, the state did not meet its burden of establishing that SB 343 actually advances these interests, thus failing intermediate scrutiny.

Takeaways

• The preliminary injunction prevents enforcement of the statute by the California AG’s office, and likely local district attorneys, against members of the plaintiff associations.
• Any company that is not a member of one of the plaintiff organizations is technically not covered by the preliminary injunction against SB 343 and the upcoming October 4, 2026, compliance deadline, but it is yet to be seen whether enforcement will proceed as to non-members of the plaintiff associations.
• Because violations of SB 343 may serve as evidence in false advertising suits under California consumer protection laws, consumer class action risk remains, but such claims would likely face headwinds given ongoing uncertainty over what constitutes a violation of SB 343.

The court’s decision may also affect implementation of California’s EPR packaging law (SB 54), which requires all covered materials to be recyclable or compostable, consistent with SB 343’s directives, by 2032.