California SB 343: a federal court temporarily blocks enforcement of the “Truth in Recycling” law
- Daniel Jiménez
- 5 hours ago
- 4 min read
A federal court has temporarily blocked the enforcement of California Senate Bill 343, commonly referred to as the “Truth in Recycling” law. The decision represents an important development for companies manufacturing, importing, marketing or selling packaged products in California, including cosmetic and personal care brands.
On 14 July 2026, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted a preliminary injunction preventing the California Attorney General, and those acting in coordination with him, from enforcing SB 343 until further order of the court. The decision does not definitively invalidate the legislation, but it suspends its enforcement while the underlying constitutional challenge continues.
What is California SB 343?
SB 343 was adopted in 2021 to establish stricter requirements for environmental and recyclability claims made on products and packaging sold in California.
Under the law, the use of the chasing-arrows symbol, recycling instructions or other statements suggesting that a product or package is recyclable may be considered deceptive unless the material complies with California’s specific recyclability criteria.
Among other requirements, a material would generally need to:
Be collected for recycling by programmes serving at least 60% of California’s population.
Be sorted and processed by facilities serving at least 60% of the state’s recycling programmes.
Routinely become feedstock used to manufacture new products or packaging.
Meet additional design-related requirements concerning components, labels, inks and adhesives.
For plastic packaging, the legislation also refers to compatibility with the Association of Plastic Recyclers’ design guidance.
When was SB 343 expected to become applicable?
CalRecycle published its final material characterisation findings on 4 April 2025.
The law provides an 18-month transition period following publication of that study. Consequently, the principal restrictions on recyclability claims were expected to become applicable on 4 October 2026.
Companies selling packaged goods in California had therefore already begun reviewing packaging artwork, environmental statements and recycling symbols in preparation for that deadline.
Why was the law challenged?
A coalition of trade associations representing food, packaging, retail, personal care and other industries challenged SB 343 before the federal court.
The plaintiffs argued that several provisions of the law were insufficiently clear and could make it difficult for businesses to determine whether a product or package legally qualifies as recyclable.
In particular, the challenge questioned expressions and requirements such as:
Whether a material “routinely becomes feedstock”.
Whether products are sent to reclaiming facilities operating consistently with the Basel Convention.
Whether packaging components “prevent recyclability”.
Whether a product has been designed to “ensure recyclability”.
The plaintiffs also argued that the law placed unconstitutional restrictions on commercial speech under the First Amendment.
What did the court decide?
The court concluded that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success on several aspects of their constitutional challenge.
Regarding legal certainty, the court found that certain provisions may fail to give businesses adequate notice of what conduct is prohibited. It particularly highlighted the difficulty manufacturers may face when compliance depends on recycling processes, downstream operations or information outside their direct control.
The court also considered that SB 343 regulates commercial speech and found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their First Amendment challenge. According to the order, the restriction may be more extensive than necessary to achieve California’s stated objectives of improving recycling rates and reducing consumer confusion.
As a result, the court granted the preliminary injunction and ordered that SB 343 must not be enforced until further judicial notice.
Does this mean that SB 343 has been cancelled?
No.
The preliminary injunction is a temporary procedural measure. It prevents enforcement while the case continues, but it does not amount to a final judgment declaring the legislation permanently invalid.
The situation could still evolve in several ways:
The injunction could remain in place while the litigation proceeds.
The decision could be appealed.
The court could ultimately uphold all or part of the law.
California could amend or clarify certain provisions.
A future court order could modify or remove the current restriction.
Companies should therefore avoid treating the judgment as a permanent cancellation of the October 2026 compliance requirements.
What does this mean for cosmetic and personal care companies?
The decision provides additional time for companies preparing to revise their packaging for California.
However, cosmetic brands should continue reviewing claims such as:
“Recyclable”
“100% recyclable”
“Please recycle”
“Widely recyclable”
“Recyclable packaging”
Chasing-arrows symbols
Resin identification codes surrounded by recycling arrows
Other environmental claims that may imply actual recyclability
The assessment should cover not only the primary container, but also secondary packaging, labels, caps, pumps, applicators, adhesives, inks and any other relevant packaging component.
This is particularly important because a package may be technically made from a recyclable material while still failing to satisfy legal criteria concerning collection, sorting, processing or packaging design.
What should companies do now?
Companies selling products in California should use the additional time strategically rather than suspending their compliance work entirely.
Recommended actions include:
Identifying all recycling symbols and environmental statements currently used on packaging.
Checking whether each statement can be substantiated with reliable evidence.
Reviewing every packaging component, rather than only the main material.
Confirming whether suppliers can provide recyclability and packaging-design documentation.
Preparing alternative packaging artwork in case the law, or a revised version of it, becomes enforceable.
Monitoring the litigation and any further guidance issued by California authorities.
A temporary pause, not the end of recycling-claim regulation
The federal court’s decision is significant because it delays the immediate enforcement risk associated with SB 343.
Nevertheless, scrutiny of environmental marketing and green claims continues to increase in California, the United States and other international markets. Businesses should therefore continue ensuring that recyclability statements are specific, accurate and supported by evidence.
For brands operating internationally, environmental claims should also be assessed separately in each market. A statement that may be acceptable in one jurisdiction could be misleading or non-compliant in another.
Belab Services supports cosmetic and personal care companies with packaging, labelling and claims compliance for the United States and other international markets.
Comments