Industry Groups Challenge Constitutionality of California’s “Truth in Labeling” Law

On March 17, 2026, a coalition of 18 food industry groups and trade associations brought suit in California federal court challenging the constitutionality of California’s “Truth in Labeling” law (SB 343). Plaintiffs seek a declaration that SB 343 is unconstitutional and a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the law while the suit is pending. SB 343 bans the use of any statement or symbol indicating that a product or package manufactured after October 4, 2026 is recyclable unless it meets stringent recycling metrics and other criteria set out in the law, necessitating costly changes to packaging (including retooling of plastic molds that include the plastic Resin Identification Code (RIC) with the “triangle of arrows” design). The lawsuit challenges this prohibition as unconstitutional under standards for both content and commercial speech restrictions in violation of the First Amendment, a possibility we raised when SB 343 was first enacted in 2021. (For further discussions of SB 343, see also here and here.)

Plaintiffs argue that banning recyclable claims for products and packages that may not meet SB 343 criteria, but truthfully communicate recyclability information, will unduly burden businesses. According to plaintiffs, instead of restricting truthful speech, California could take other actions to “improve the marketplace of information.” The lawsuit also challenges SB 343 as unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, alleging that the law’s ambiguous criteria deprive businesses of notice as to which materials the state considers to be “recyclable.”

Separate from the constitutional questions, potential harm to consumers deprived of accurate recycling information, and burden and costs to businesses flagged in the lawsuit, SB 343 also seems inconsistent with stated recycling goals under another California law, SB 54. SB 54 established an extended producer responsibility (EPR) program to manage single-use packaging and plastic food service ware in the state. Producers subject to SB 54 must ensure that “all covered material offered for sale, distributed, or imported in or into the state on or after January 1, 2032, is recyclable in the state or eligible for being labeled ‘compostable’” and that plastic covered materials achieve specified recycling rates that increase from not less than 30% by 2028 to not less than 65% by 2032. The state’s own assessments demonstrate that many types of packaging are indeed recycled in California, just not at the levels required by SB 343. A law like SB 343 that purports to bar truthful claims about the ability to recycle particular packaging – even if current options are limited, but known to be available in the state – is unlikely to further the state’s stated goals of expanding recycling.

In short, SB 343, as written, impedes the ability of companies to make truthful recycling claims about their products. If enforced, this speech restriction may limit businesses’ ability to meet the state’s EPR requirements. That, in turn, will likely trigger much higher EPR fees and even potential product bans. We will continue to follow this case closely and will report on developments as they arise.