Plaintiffs Ask Court to Add Constitutional Claims Against SB 54 to Their SB 343 Challenge

On October 8, 2026, Plaintiffs in California League of Food Producers v. Bonta (S.D. Cal.) asked the Court for permission to file a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) in their legal challenge to SB 343, California’s Truth in Recycling law, to assert additional related claims that certain provisions of SB 54, California’s extended producer responsibility (EPR) law, violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. If allowed, the SAC will significantly expand the scope of the litigation. The amended complaint seeks equitable relief and names the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) and the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) as additional defendants.

As we discussed here and here, SB 343 purports to prohibit truthful claims about recyclability (even if current options are limited), which in turn impedes the ability of companies to meet the requirements of SB 54. SB 54 is already subject to legal challenges in both federal and state court, but with the Court’s July order barring enforcement of SB 343 on the basis that the law’s recyclability provisions likely violate the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, challenging the constitutionality of SB 54’s recyclability provisions makes sense. Indeed, according to their moving papers, because “[t]he ambiguities and constitutional infirmities that plague SB 343 have now infected [SB 54],” Plaintiffs “move to add claims that challenge provisions of SB 54 that redefine the word “recyclable,” create opaque product and packaging design requirements, and place corresponding compliance and financial obligations on businesses.”

We will continue to monitor this case closely, including whether the Court will allow the SAC and the expanded scope of the litigation, and report on noteworthy developments.