On July 14, 2026, U.S. District Judge William Q. Hayes granted a motion for preliminary injunction barring California Attorney General Rob Bonta and the State of California from enforcing SB 343, California’s “Truth in Recycling” law, while the litigation proceeds. The order is significant not merely because it pauses a major labeling regime shortly before its October 2026 compliance date, but because the Court found that the challengers are likely to prevail on both of their core constitutional theories: that key provisions of SB 343 are unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, and that the statute impermissibly restricts commercial speech under the First Amendment.
SB 343 seeks to tighten the circumstances in which manufacturers and sellers may communicate recyclability information to California consumers. Most prominently, it prohibits use of the familiar “chasing arrows” symbol unless the product or packaging satisfies multiple statutory criteria, including collection and sorting thresholds, design and composition requirements, and requirements tied to downstream reclamation and the Basel Convention. The law was scheduled to become enforceable on October 4, 2026; the injunction now prevents enforcement unless and until the Court modifies or dissolves the order.
The Court’s decision rests on two independent constitutional grounds, each of which has practical significance for companies making recyclability claims.
First, Judge Hayes concluded that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that several provisions of SB 343 are unconstitutionally vague. The Court focused on requirements that, in its view, do not give regulated parties a sufficiently clear standard for determining when a recyclability claim is lawful, including:
- The requirement that recyclable products or packaging be “a material type and form that routinely becomes feedstock used in the production of new products or packaging,” without specifying how often that must occur or how the standard is to be measured;
- The requirement that recyclable material be sent to and reclaimed at a facility consistent with the Basel Convention, notwithstanding uncertainty about how that treaty-based standard applies in this context;
- The requirement that plastic packaging avoid components, inks, adhesives, or labels that “prevent” recyclability under the APR Design Guide for Plastics Recyclability; and
- The broader requirement that products and packaging be designed to “ensure recyclability” and not “prevent recyclability,” a formulation the Court viewed as leaving manufacturers to guess at the level of redesign required.
Second, Judge Hayes held that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their First Amendment facial challenge even if the vague provisions are severed. Applying the commercial-speech framework, the Court treated SB 343 as a restriction on potentially misleading—not inherently misleading—speech, and therefore required California to justify the law under heightened scrutiny. The Court found:
- Plaintiffs established that SB 343 regulates speech that may be potentially misleading, rather than speech that is inherently misleading in all applications;
- California asserted substantial interests in improving recycling rates, reducing consumer confusion, and ensuring that recyclability claims reflect real-world recycling outcomes;
- The State did not provide sufficient evidence, on the current record, that SB 343 would directly and materially advance those interests; and
- The statute sweeps more broadly than necessary by deterring recyclability claims that may provide consumers with useful environmental information.
The First Amendment holding is especially important because it is not limited to the particular provisions the Court found vague. In the Court’s view, even a narrower version of SB 343 would likely fail because California had not shown that suppressing recyclability claims in this manner would materially reduce consumer confusion or improve recycling outcomes. That reasoning, if it survives further proceedings, could affect not only SB 343 but also future state efforts to regulate environmental marketing claims through categorical labeling restrictions.
Having found a likelihood of success on the merits, the Court also concluded that the remaining preliminary-injunction factors favored relief. The Court determined that Plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction, that the balance of equities favors Plaintiffs, and that an injunction serves the public interest.
The scope of the injunction is also important. The order states that, as of July 14, 2026, SB 343 may not be enforced by Attorney General Bonta “and all those in privity or acting in concert with Defendant Bonta,” pending further order of the Court. On its face, that language is not limited to the named Plaintiffs or their members. The breadth of the order may be subject to further litigation or narrowing, particularly in light of recent Supreme Court skepticism toward nationwide or universal injunctions that extend relief beyond the parties before the court.
That risk is not theoretical. In recent litigation over Oregon’s extended producer responsibility law for single-use packaging, a federal district court enjoined the law only as applied to the plaintiffs in that case. If the injunction is subsequently narrowed, California could seek to enforce SB 343’s restrictions against non-parties on the statute’s existing terms.
The decision also does not resolve the merits of the constitutional challenge. For practical purposes, companies should view the injunction as creating a temporary pause—not eliminating the need to evaluate packaging, labeling, and marketing decisions. Businesses with products sold in California may still need to decide whether to continue preparing for SB 343 compliance, whether to adjust recyclability claims in the interim, and how to account for related developments under California’s broader packaging and extended producer responsibility framework.
We will continue to monitor the case, including any appeal, motion to narrow the injunction, or further order addressing the merits. In the meantime, companies should consider reviewing California-facing recyclability claims, assessing whether they are covered by the plaintiff associations, and preserving flexibility in packaging and labeling decisions while the litigation remains pending.