Federal Court Blocks California’s “Truth in Recycling” Law on First Amendment Grounds
A federal court has preliminarily blocked California’s “Truth in Recycling” law, ruling that its restrictions on recyclability claims are likely unconstitutional under the First Amendment and finding that several of its key provisions are impermissibly vague under the Fourteenth Amendment.
In a July 14, 2026, order, the Southern District of California concluded that although the provisions likely to be unconstitutionally vague could be severed from the statute, the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their broader First Amendment challenge. As a result, the court enjoined enforcement of the law in its entirety pending further litigation.
What California’s “Truth in Recycling” Law Requires
California enacted SB 343, often referred to as the “Truth in Recycling” or “Truth in Labeling” law, in October 2021. The law declares recyclability claims—including the chasing arrows symbol—deceptive or misleading unless certain criteria are met. Chief among them is the “60/60 requirement,” which mandates that the labeled product or packaging be:
- Collected for recycling by jurisdictions serving at least 60% of Californians; and
- Processed by facilities serving at least 60% of recycling programs statewide, with the collected material sent to and reclaimed at a facility consistent with the Basel Convention (a 1989 treaty governing the transnational movement of hazardous waste).
The law also requires that:
- The labeled product or packaging “routinely” become feedstock used to produce new products or packaging;
- Plastic packaging not include any components, inks, adhesives, or labels that prevent recyclability, according to guidance published by a plastics trade association; and
- Plastic products and non-plastic products and packaging be “designed to ensure recyclability” and not include any components, inks, adhesives, or labels that prevent recyclability.
These restrictions were set to take effect on October 4, 2026. The plaintiffs—a coalition of roughly twenty trade associations spanning food, packaging, grocery, and retail industries—sued Attorney General Rob Bonta in March 2026, arguing the law is unconstitutional on its face.
Key Provisions Likely Unconstitutionally Vague
The plaintiffs argue that four of the law’s requirements are unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment. For the purposes of a preliminary injunction, the court found that they are likely to succeed on each challenge:
- The “routinely becomes feedstock” provision, because the meaning of “routinely” is unclear.
- The Basel Convention requirement, because manufacturers were given no guidance on how compliance with the provision will be determined, which elements of the convention will be considered in reaching a determination, and which facilities are currently in compliance.
- The reference to industry guidance, because it is ambiguous whether materials categorized as “Detrimental to Recycling” or “Tolerated But Needs Improvement” are permissible, and because SB 343 does not address what happens when the guidance changes.
- The ensures or prevents recyclability provision, because the law provides no guidance on what those terms mean.
The court found all four requirements severable from the remaining text of the law, including the 60/60 requirement—meaning that the rest of the law could still theoretically be allowed to take effect even if the four vague provisions were enjoined.
First Amendment Analysis
The remainder of the law could not withstand scrutiny under the First Amendment, however.
As a threshold matter, the court first determined that the speech at issue is only “potentially” misleading, and not “inherently” misleading, and therefore within the scope of the First Amendment. The court then applied the remaining prongs of Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, the framework applicable to many regulations of commercial speech.
While finding that California has substantial interests in (1) improving recycling rates and (2) reducing consumer confusion, the court concluded that neither interest was directly advanced by the law. Addressing recycling rates first, the court held that California failed to adequately support its assertion that businesses would redesign products and packaging to make them recyclable under the law instead of simply removing their recyclability claims. Gains in efficiency at recycling facilities from removing contaminants “may be substantially outweighed by the decreased rate at which recyclable materials reach those facilities,” the order states.
As to consumer confusion, the court held that the reduced number of recyclability claims would leave customers “with less information than they would receive in the absence of SB 343’s regulatory scheme.” For example, a product only recyclable in one part of California could not be labeled with that information because the 60/60 requirement would not be satisfied, the court observed.
Finally, the court also held that the law is more extensive than necessary to serve its interests, observing that less extensive regulations, such as required disclosure of materials that may limit recycling, would also advance the state’s goal.
The case is California League of Food Producers v. Bonta, No. 3:26-cv-1675 (S.D. Cal.), filed March 17, 2026.
