Written Opinion on SB 343 Constitutional Challenge Expected After Hearing

On June 3, 2026, a federal district court in California held a hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction in a legal challenge filed by 21 organizations contending that California’s SB 343, also known as the Truth in Recycling law, is unconstitutional. At issue in California League of Food Producers v. Bonta (Case No. 3:26-cv-01675, S.D. Cal.) is whether the exacting requirements of SB 343 on recyclable claims – including bans on the traditional “triangle of arrows” design of the plastic Resin Identification Code (RIC) – violate free speech and due process. The court did not issue a ruling from the bench, and a written opinion is expected.

As we previously wrote, California SB 343 bars any statement or symbol indicating that a product or packaging is recyclable unless the product or packaging meets stringent recycling metrics and other criteria set by the State. On March 17, 2026, 18 food industry groups and trade associations filed a complaint in the Southern District of California challenging the law’s constitutionality on First Amendment and due process grounds (an amended complaint later added three additional plaintiff organizations). Plaintiffs assert that because SB 343 prohibits any symbol or claim – including truthful, qualified claims – it is facially unconstitutional. (We weighed in on SB 343’s constitutionality here and discussed the law more generally here and here.) On April 24, 2026, plaintiffs also asked the court to issue a preliminary injunction to halt the law’s effective date of October 4, 2026, while the case plays out.

Interestingly, the Attorney General’s (AG) Opposition to plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, filed on May 18, 2026, reflected an apparent concession that manufacturers whose products do not meet SB 343’s standards could still make some on-pack recyclability claims. Specifically, the AG told the court that “the law is not a complete ban on discussion of recyclability,” and “[m]anufacturers may discuss recyclability on their products so long as their language does not ‘indicat[e] the product or packaging is recyclable’ or ‘direct[] the consumer to recycle the product or packaging’.” The brief suggested that a qualified on-pack claim, such as “Not recyclable in most areas; check locally,” or “a QR code on the package with details regarding the product’s recyclability,” would not violate the law. Plaintiffs, in their May 26, 2026, response, pointed out that even the AG’s interpretation could leave manufacturers vulnerable in class action litigation. For example, consumer litigants could argue that “(1) even a statement such as ‘Not recyclable in most areas; check locally’ indicates that the product is recyclable in some areas; and (2) even if the recyclability message is not on the product itself, a QR code linking to it is still a ‘symbol’ that is ‘otherwise directing the consumer to recycle the product.” According to plaintiffs, “the AG’s post hoc rationalization in this lawsuit at best merely spotlights the vagueness of the law.”

Time will tell where the chips will fall, as industry and advocates await the court’s written opinion on plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, which will hopefully be issued in the coming days. A ruling on the merits of SB 343’s constitutionality will take more time, and a series of appeals is expected. SB 343’s restrictions are of crucial importance to food companies, consumer product companies, and businesses everywhere, and we are watching for this initial ruling carefully.