A California federal court granted a preliminary injunction on July 14, blocking the state’s attorney general from enforcing Senate Bill 343, its recycling labelling law.
SB 343 requires businesses to verify that their products and packaging meet specific recycling access, sorting, and design standards before using recyclability claims or the widely recognised “chasing arrows” symbol.
The law defines a product as recyclable only if at least 60% of California residents have access to recycling collection for the relevant material and at least 60% of recycling systems sort that material.
Products must also meet design standards to ensure recyclability and comply with limitations on the use of perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly known as PFAS.
A coalition of trade associations representing the food, packaging, retail, and consumer products industries brought the legal challenge on constitutional grounds relating to vagueness and free speech.
The court found that plaintiffs were likely to succeed in arguing that four provisions of the law are unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Two provisions requiring that recyclable materials “routinely become feedstock” and be recycled “consistent with the Basel Convention” were singled out as particularly unclear in their requirements.
The court also applied the US Supreme Court’s intermediate scrutiny test for commercial speech and found that SB 343 does not directly advance California’s stated interests in improving recycling rates and reducing consumer confusion.
A key part of the court’s First Amendment reasoning was that businesses were responding to the law by removing recyclability claims rather than redesigning products, meaning consumers received less information about recycling, not more.
The court further held that the law was more extensive than necessary because it does not allow for limited recyclability claims such as “recyclable where facilities exist – check locally.”
The preliminary injunction applies to the California attorney general and “all those in privity or acting in concert” with him, though the precise scope of its protection for businesses remains uncertain.
It is also unclear whether the injunction covers enforcement by local district attorneys or private plaintiffs who were not party to the lawsuit, leaving some legal exposure unresolved.
Businesses that had already begun modifying packaging or removing recyclability claims ahead of the October deadline now face continued uncertainty about whether and in what form the law’s requirements may ultimately take effect.
Private litigation risk also persists regardless of the injunction, as CalRecycle’s Material Characterization Study has been cited in recent consumer class action lawsuits challenging recycling claims in California.