A federal judge has halted enforcement of California’s SB 343 just weeks before the “Truth in Recycling” law was set to take effect, ruling that key provisions are unconstitutionally vague and that the state failed to show the law would actually improve recycling rates.
US District Judge William Q. Hayes granted a preliminary injunction July 14 in California League of Food Producers, et al. v. Bonta, blocking California Attorney General Rob Bonta from enforcing the law “until further order of the Court.” The ruling came roughly six weeks after a June 3 hearing and less than three months before SB 343’s October 4 compliance deadline.
The order is a win for the 20-member coalition of food, packaging and retail trade associations including the California League of Food Producers, Flexible Packaging Association, American Forest & Paper Association and California Grocers Association that sued Bonta in March, arguing the law’s restrictions on recyclability claims violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Four provisions found vague
Hayes found four separate provisions of SB 343 unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause:
- The requirement that recyclable material “routinely becomes feedstock used in the production of new products or packaging,” which the court said offers no threshold or provision for how often reprocessing must occur to qualify.
- A requirement tying recyclability to compliance with the Basel Convention, an international treaty the US is not party to. According to court records, counsel for the attorney general effectively conceded the point at the June hearing when Hayes asked directly whether the state’s litigation position amounted to an admission of vagueness.
- The requirement that plastic packaging avoid features that “prevent” recyclability under the APR Design Guide, a standard the court found is revised often enough that manufacturers can’t reliably determine which version applies or when.
- A broader requirement that packaging be “designed to ensure recyclability,” which Hayes wrote leaves manufacturers to guess how much redesign would be enough.
Hayes found the four provisions severable from the rest of the statute. This means the law’s core “60/60” collection-and-sorting threshold survives on paper.
At the hearing, the state’s own counsel described that threshold as “the backbone of the law.” But removing the vague provisions didn’t rescue SB 343, because the law also does not hold up against First Amendment scrutiny independently, according to court records.
Dan Felton, president and CEO of the Flexible Packaging Association, said the group is still evaluating the decision.
“Flexible packaging is used for a wide range of consumer goods, including food and household products. It helps preserve freshness, protect products, and provide convenient packaging solutions for families. We are still reviewing the preliminary injunction issued by Judge Hayes to understand the full implications of it. In the meantime, we maintain that SB 343 restricts our ability to provide important recycling information and relies on standards that do not always reflect real-world recycling conditions,” Felton wrote to Resource Recycling.
Other plaintiffs were more emphatic. “Californians for Affordable Packaging and the petitioner group will continue to press the case that California can strengthen recycling without censoring truthful information on packaging and without adding unnecessary and significant costs for California families and businesses,” Californians for Affordable Packaging said in a statement.
“Yesterday’s ruling is a significant win, not just for our members, but for every business that wants to give consumers accurate information about the products they buy,” said Julie Landry, vice president of government affairs at the American Forest & Paper Association. “Paper-based packaging is among the most recyclable material in the country, and our members should be able to say so truthfully. SB 343 would have forced manufacturers to strip accurate recycling information off packaging that is, in fact, recyclable — not because the claims were false, but because the law’s own standards were too vague to comply with. The Court recognized what we’ve said from the beginning: California cannot fix consumer confusion by restricting truthful speech.
State couldn’t back up its case with evidence, judge finds
The bigger blow to California’s position came under the First Amendment. Applying the Supreme Court’s Central Hudson test for commercial speech, Hayes found the state failed to show SB 343 would “directly advance” its stated interests in reducing consumer confusion and improving recycling rates.
Defense counsel acknowledged at the hearing that the law’s near-term effect could be a drop in recycling, with materials that are currently collected, just not at the 60/60 threshold, Hayes wrote. This would potentially send more packaging to landfills instead, on the argument that manufacturers would eventually redesign packaging to comply.
Hayes called that reasoning “speculative” and noted the plaintiffs submitted declarations suggesting the opposite is more likely: companies abandoning recyclability claims altogether rather than reengineering products.
The judge also found the law fails the fourth Central Hudson prong, which asks whether a speech restriction is no broader than necessary.
While SB 343 permits no middle ground, Hayes noted, a company can say “not recyclable in most areas; check locally” but cannot say “recyclable in some areas” about the same product, according to representations state counsel made at oral argument.
That structure sweeps up truthful, qualified information the state could allow through less restrictive means, like mandated disclosures, the court said.
The injunction is preliminary, not a final ruling on the law’s constitutionality. Litigation continues before Hayes, and an appeal to the Ninth Circuit is likely. No security bond was required of the plaintiffs.
The order’s practical scope for companies outside the plaintiff coalition remains an open question.
The ruling also raises questions for SB 54, California’s extended producer responsibility (EPR) law for packaging, which relies on SB 343’s recyclability criteria and CalRecycle’s Material Characterization Report to determine which materials qualify as recyclable in the state.
This is a developing story. Updates will be made as information and statements become available.
