Earth Island Institute and Californians Against Waste are asking a federal judge for a seat at the table in the lawsuit that has already put California’s “Truth in Environmental Labeling” law on ice.
The two groups, along with Earth Island’s Plastic Pollution Coalition project, filed a motion to intervene July 27 in the US District Court for the Southern District of California, seeking to defend SB 343 after Judge William Q. Hayes granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the law on July 14.
The motion is set for an August 31 hearing before Hayes, though it will be decided without oral argument unless the court orders otherwise.
A coalition of packaging, food and retail trade groups sued Attorney General Rob Bonta in March, arguing SB 343’s recyclability labeling restrictions violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Hayes agreed, at least preliminarily, finding four provisions of the law unconstitutionally vague and ruling the state hadn’t shown the law would actually improve recycling rates or cut consumer confusion.
Earth Island Institute, PPC and CAW argue that ruling leaves SB 343’s underlying purpose undefended by the parties still in the case. Bonta’s office remains the named defendant.
Curbing misleading claims
SB 343 took effect in 2021 to mitigate alleged misleading recyclability claims on packaging, particularly plastics that are rarely recycled in practice despite carrying the chasing-arrows symbol.
The law bars use of that symbol, or any other recyclability indicator, unless a product meets statewide criteria. The material must be collected, sorted and processed by systems serving a substantial share of California residents, and it must routinely become feedstock for new products.
Supporters say those standards are meant to reduce contamination in recycling streams, hold companies accountable for greenwashing and push manufacturers toward more recyclable packaging design.
The ruling also has implications beyond SB 343 itself. SB 54, California’s extended producer responsibility law for packaging, relies on SB 343’s recyclability criteria and CalRecycle’s Material Characterization Report to determine which materials qualify as recyclable in the state.
Legal grounds
The motion asks Hayes to let the groups join as defendants either as a matter of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) or, alternatively, through permissive intervention under Rule 24(b).
To intervene as of right, Earth Island Institute and CAW must show their motion is timely, that they have an interest in the litigation’s subject matter, that the case’s outcome could impair their ability to protect that interest and that the existing parties don’t adequately represent it.
The alternative permissive-intervention path is a lower bar: the motion has to be timely, raise questions of law or fact in common with the existing case, and not unduly delay the proceedings. Courts also weigh whether the groups bring a perspective the case would otherwise lack, according to case documents.
The filing is backed by declarations from Scott Hochberg of Earth Island Institute, Nick Lapis of CAW, and Dianna Cohen of PPC, along with a proposed answer the groups would file if allowed to join as defendants.
Dianna Cohen, PPC co-founder and chief vision officer, said SB 343 is designed to hold companies to an evidence-based standard rather than let them set their own terms.
“SB 343 will expose decades of misleading claims that plastic recycling is the solution to the plastic pollution crisis,” Cohen said in a statement. “This law is a breakthrough because it establishes guardrails for what can be labeled recyclable — not on a company’s terms, but based on reality. There should be truth in advertising. It’s critical that SB 343 be fully implemented.”
Scott Hochberg, general counsel for Earth Island Institute, said the law fills a gap for consumers trying to make environmentally informed purchasing decisions.
“Those decisions become impossible when companies can place recycling symbols on packaging that is rarely or never recycled,” Hochberg said. “SB 343 establishes objective standards to ensure environmental claims are based on evidence rather than marketing. For California, SB 343 represents a significant step forward in strengthening environmental standards, improving corporate accountability, and protecting consumers.”
Nick Lapis, director of advocacy for Californians Against Waste, framed the law as a truth-in-advertising measure, not a recycling mandate.
“This law has always been about truth-in-advertising, and consumers deserve facts, not greenwashing,” Lapis said. “Slapping a recycling symbol on unmarketable trash doesn’t make it suddenly transform it into something that has value. This law prevents companies from lying to their customers.”
Hayes’ injunction is not a final ruling on SB 343’s constitutionality, and litigation continues in his court. The motion to intervene would let Earth Island Institute, PPC and CAW argue directly for the law’s validity going forward, rather than relying on the state to carry that argument alone.
