In March 2026, a coalition of trade groups filed a federal lawsuit challenging California’s SB 343, widely known as the Truth in Recycling Act.
Plaintiffs argue the law unconstitutionally restricts truthful commercial speech in violation of the First Amendment and is void for vagueness under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
A federal court recently granted a preliminary injunction on First Amendment and Due Process grounds, temporarily halting enforcement of the California greenwashing law.
Following that decision, two environmental groups filed motions to intervene and support the state’s effort to defend SB 343 in court.
The litigation is significant because it seeks to substantially change the framework governing recycling advertising across California and potentially beyond.
Rather than permitting recyclability claims based on whether a material is capable of being recycled, the law requires consideration of whether materials are actually collected, sorted, and processed for recycling in California.
On the chemicals front, states continue to expand restrictions on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly known as PFAS, creating an increasingly complex compliance landscape for manufacturers.
New Mexico finalised PFAS regulations that include phased product prohibitions beginning in 2027, with restrictions expanding through 2032 across a broad range of consumer products.
A labelling requirement in New Mexico mandates affirmative disclosure of intentionally added PFAS for products manufactured after January 1, 2027, and is among the more expansive state mandates currently in effect.
Minnesota amended its existing PFAS reporting statute to exclude products manufactured before July 1, 2023, narrowing the scope of required disclosures and addressing industry concerns about legacy product data.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency also extended the reporting deadline to September 15, 2026, citing logistical challenges raised by regulated entities operating under the framework.
Extended Producer Responsibility packaging laws are generating significant compliance activity, with producers facing reporting requirements and annual fees across multiple states simultaneously.
On May 31, 2026, annual reporting deadlines applied in six of the seven states with active EPR packaging programmes, placing considerable administrative burden on consumer-packaged goods companies.
California required producers to submit supply data for calendar years 2023 and 2025, along with information on plastic source-reduction activities tied to the state’s reduction targets.
By August 1, 2026, producers in California must also submit individual source-reduction plans describing activities intended to help the state meet its long-term goals.
In Oregon, the Department of Environmental Quality initiated formal enforcement activities against producers that failed to report or pay fees for the initial 2025 programme year.
Oregon’s DEQ published a list of companies that, according to its records, failed to report or remit required fees after receiving notices of delinquency from the Circular Action Alliance.
Colorado’s Department of Public Health and Environment is similarly expected to begin enforcement activities, with the Circular Action Alliance already issuing notices of noncompliance to producers.
In Oregon and Colorado, industry plaintiffs have challenged their respective states’ EPR laws on constitutional grounds, including arguments under the non-delegation doctrine.
An Oregon court granted the plaintiff a preliminary injunction halting enforcement of the EPR law as to the plaintiff group’s members, with that case now proceeding to trial.
On June 22, 2026, a coalition of 17 states and a national trade association sued CalRecycle and the Circular Action Alliance, challenging California’s EPR law and its administration.
Plaintiffs argue California’s EPR law effectively regulates commerce beyond the state’s borders by forcing nationwide changes to product design, packaging, and supply chains.
California’s textile EPR law, SB 707, reached its first compliance deadline on July 1, by which date obligated producers were required to register with the designated producer responsibility organisation.
The registration deadline arrives amid significant uncertainty, as CalRecycle currently faces litigation over its selection of the textile PRO, with plaintiffs alleging the agency’s selection process did not comply with California law.