Federal Court Blocks California’s “Truth in Recycling” Law on First Amendment Grounds

/in , , ,

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:

  1. Collected for recycling by jurisdictions serving at least 60% of Californians; and
  2. 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:

  1. The “routinely becomes feedstock” provision, because the meaning of “routinely” is unclear.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.

Bipartisan Bill Would Give Safer Choice Program Its First Statutory Authorization

/in , ,

For a voluntary program with roughly 2,000 certified products and unusually broad industry support, Safer Choice has always rested on thin statutory footing.  EPA has run it for more than a decade under general Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) authority, without any statute naming the program or directing the agency to operate it.  A bill introduced in the Senate on June 2, 2026, would change that.

What the Bill Does

Senators Chris Coons (D-DE) and Jon Husted (R-OH) introduced S. 4664, the Safer Choice Program Authorization Act of 2026, which would direct the EPA administrator to carry out a voluntary Safer Choice Program encompassing both the Safer Choice and Design for the Environment (DfE) Standards. The bill has been read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

The legislation would codify much of what EPA already does administratively.  It directs the Administrator to certify products against those Standards, criteria the agency updated in 2024; to maintain the Safer Chemical Ingredients List; and to authorize use of the Safer Choice and DfE labels, which the bill treats as agency marks that may not be used in a false or unauthorized manner.  It would formalize the role of qualified third-party profilers—the outside reviewers who evaluate ingredients and formulations—subject to independence and conflict-of-interest requirements, while reserving final certification decisions to the administrator.  The bill would also authorize the administrator to add product categories—a direction EPA explored through a 2023 request for comment.  It directs coordination with the Food and Drug Administration and the Consumer Product Safety Commission and authorizes $6 million per year for fiscal years 2028 through 2034.

Why It Matters

Because Congress never authorized Safer Choice, the program has been exposed to elimination through budget and reorganization decisions rather than legislation.  Project 2025’s Mandate for Leadership recommended transitioning the Safer Choice program to the private sector, and in 2025 EPA reportedly moved the program into a larger chemicals division as part of a broader reorganization.  The administration’s recent budget requests have proposed steep reductions across EPA.  Statutory authorization would make the program meaningfully harder to unwind administratively.

Who Is Affected

The interested parties here are mostly proponents.  Cleaning-product manufacturers account for most Safer Choice certifications, and they, along with ingredient suppliers, retailers, and institutional and government purchasers who use the label as a procurement benchmark, have an interest in the program’s continuity.  Trade associations representing these sectors have supported authorization.  In addition, third-party profilers would gain a defined statutory role under the legislation.

Bill Targets Misleading Recycled Content Claims, Endorses Mass-Balance Accounting

/in ,

A bipartisan group of lawmakers has introduced legislation to prohibit misleading recycled content claims and establish mass-balance accounting as an acceptable method for substantiating them.

The Recycled Materials Attribution Act of 2026 was introduced by Rep. Langworthy (R-NY) on February 11, 2026, and is currently pending before the House Energy and Commerce Committee.  The text of H.R. 7502 was made publicly available this month.

The bill would prohibit misleading recycled content advertising claims, enforceable by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).  Fuels produced and sold as an end product would also be ineligible for recycled content marketing.  At the same time, the legislation recognizes mass-balance accounting as an acceptable method for substantiating recycled content claims, provided its use complies with a third-party certification system.  The legislation defines recycling to include both mechanical and non-mechanical recycling.

The bill would require the FTC to update the Green Guides—the agency’s guidance for environmental marketing claims—within one year to reflect these requirements.  The FTC would additionally be required to issue guidance clarifying that mass balance accounting representations be based on “competent and reliable scientific evidence” and provide a “clear and consistent framework” for recycled content claims.

A separate provision would preempt state and local laws relating to the legislation’s prohibition and enforcement provisions.

The bill is backed by the Recycling Leadership Council (RLC), a coalition that includes the American Chemistry Council, American Circular Textiles, and the Consumer Brands Association.

“Advanced technology in recycling is transforming how we recover and reuse materials that would otherwise end up in landfills, but our regulations have remained stagnant,” Rep. Langworthy said in a statement released by the RLC.  “This much-needed legislation changes that by modernizing and updating the rules with a uniform national standard that protects consumers from misleading claims while giving American manufacturers the certainty they need to invest, innovate, and compete.”

Critics, including the Plastic Pollution Coalition, argue that the bill “creates a system that enables backdoor accounting practices to substantiate marketing claims while promoting chemical recycling,” including “chemical recycling processes that are just turning plastics into fuels.”

Pet Food Brand to Modify ‘Made in USA’ and ‘All Natural’ Claims After NAD Review

/in ,

Sundays for Dogs will discontinue certain “Made in USA” and “all natural ingredients” claims following recommendations from the Better Business Bureau’s National Advertising Division (NAD), the industry self-regulatory body announced April 17, 2026.

According to NAD, the dog food manufacturer sources most of its ingredients domestically.  However, because “certain key ingredients, including beef bone and fish oil, are sourced from New Zealand,” NAD recommended that Sundays add qualifying language to its “Made in USA” representations.

“Consistent with Federal Trade Commission guidance, NAD determined that because these ingredients are essential to the product’s function, an unqualified ‘Made in USA’ claim is not appropriate, even if the amount of foreign content is small,” the decision summary states.

Other contested claims included “all natural ingredients” and “100% meat and superfoods.”  When accompanied by imagery suggesting whole fruits and vegetables, NAD found those claims misleading because Sundays uses nutrient extracts rather than whole-food ingredients.  Similar claims were deemed acceptable in other contexts, however.

NAD also found adequate substantiation for the brand’s “no synthetic additives” claim, but recommended that Sundays stop implying that competing products contain synthetic additives.

The challenge, which concerned claims on the company’s website and social media channels, was brought by rival pet food maker The Farmer’s Dog, Inc.  Sundays agreed to comply with NAD’s recommendations.

California Bill Would Strip ‘Compostable’ Label from Plastic Products

/in ,

California lawmakers are weighing legislation targeting plastics in organic waste streams, characterizing plastic as a contaminant in the composting process.

Beginning January 1, 2027, Assembly Bill 1812 would prohibit the sale of products labeled with the terms “compostable” or “home compostable” that are made wholly or partially of plastic.  It would also update the requirements for those representations by eliminating references to ASTM standards for plastic compostability, instead limiting the labels to products that are “OK compost HOME” certified or meet a different standard adopted by CalRecycle.

Fiber products that are demonstrated to not incorporate any plastics or polymers would not be required to meet those requirements, unless CalRecycle adopts or approves a compostability standard specifically for fiber products.

Under existing California law, products making compostability claims must already satisfy all of the following conditions:

  • Be an allowable organic input under the USDA National Organic Program
  • Contain no more than 100 ppm of total organic fluorine
  • Be labeled in a way that distinguishes them from non-compostable products upon reasonable consumer inspection and supports efficient processing at solid waste facilities
  • Be designed to be associated with the recovery of desirable organic waste

AB 1812 was introduced February 10, 2026, and amended March 23.  On April 13, the bill passed the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources and was re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

Keurig Hit with Class Action over ‘Recyclable’ K-Cups

/in

A California consumer has launched a putative class action against Keurig Dr. Pepper, alleging that the beverage giant’s single-serve coffee pods are deceptively labeled as “recyclable” because most recycling centers are unable to accept them.

According to the complaint, filed April 7, 2026, Keurig K-Cups are virtually non-recyclable due to their small size, multi-material design, residual coffee grounds and liquids, and limited economic value in recycling streams.

“Despite these facts, Keurig promotes its K-Cup pods as ‘recyclable’ because they are made from polypropylene #5 plastic,” the complaint alleges.  “However, the company relies on a purely theoretical definition of recyclability that ignores the fundamental principles outlined in the FTC’s Green Guides and does not align with consumer understanding.”

The challenged representations are allegedly made on product packaging, Keurig’s website, online retail listings, and social media alongside the “chasing arrows” recyclability symbol.

The complaint further alleges that recycling centers serving at least 60 percent of US consumers do not accept K-Cups—the threshold for making unqualified recyclability claims under the Green Guides, which provide guidance for environmental marketing claims and are incorporated into California law.  Qualifying language telling consumers to “check locally” or noting that the pods “are not recycled in many communities” is shown in fine print that is difficult to read, the complaint says.

“If Plaintiff had known that the Products were not recyclable, Plaintiff would not have purchased the Products,” the complaint states.  “At a minimum, Plaintiff would not have paid as much as he did if he had known the Products could not be recycled.”

The lawsuit also notes that Keurig’s recyclability claims have previously been challenged.  In 2023, Keurig settled similar allegations for $10 million but allegedly made only “minor modifications” to its marketing.  The complaint also references a civil penalty imposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission because the company failed to disclose recyclability concerns raised by recycling facilities.

The plaintiff alleges violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, as well as for negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.

The case is Dixon v. Keurig Dr Pepper, Inc., No. 26-cv-2172 (S.D. Cal.), filed 4/7/2026.

Update (April 15, 2026)

On April 10, 2026, an almost identical putative class action was filed against Keurig in New York.  That case is Sulli v. Keurig Dr Pepper, Inc., No. 26-cv-6420 (W.D.N.Y.), filed 4/10/2026.

Apple’s Own Chemical Policies Sink Its Bid to Toss PFAS Watch Band Suit

/in ,

A federal court has refused to toss a proposed class action accusing Apple of selling smartwatch bands laced with a PFAS known as PFHxA, finding that Apple’s own internal restrictions on PFHxA gave the plaintiffs enough to show the watchbands posed a plausible health risk.

The Northern District of California’s March 16, 2026, order found that the plaintiffs had adequately established standing and stated viable claims on nearly every count, citing both independent lab results and Apple’s internal supplier policies.  According to the plaintiffs, Apple previously designated PFHxA as “reportable” at 25 parts per billion (ppb) and elevated the designation to “restricted” in 2023, prohibiting suppliers from exceeding that threshold.

Combined with the plaintiffs’ test results showing PFHxA concentrations exceeding 1,000 ppb, the court found sufficient basis for standing.  Given that Apple and the European Union have designated 25 ppb PFHxA as “significant enough to raise concerns warranting some type of disclosure or prohibition,” the plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the bands “have risky levels of PFHxA,” the court held.

Neither the lab results nor the internal Apple policies were included in the original complaint; both were added by amendment.  The study underlying the original suit presented anonymized results and therefore “does not quite say” that the contested bands contain PFAS, the court noted, which was a central focus of Apple’s initial motion to dismiss.

Notably, the court did not address Apple’s arguments in its subsequent motion that the plaintiffs’ test results came from a single tested product and that the plaintiffs failed to allege that the specific products they purchased contained PFHxA—an omission that other courts have found fatal in similar suits.

Most Claims Clear the Pleading Bar

Apple’s supplier classifications proved central to the plaintiffs’ fraudulent concealment/omission claim, which the court found plausible given Apple’s internal recognition of PFHxA’s risks.  The plaintiffs’ negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and California Unfair Competition Law claims also survived.  On negligent misrepresentation, the court rejected Apple’s economic loss rule argument, reasoning that the alleged health risks placed the claims outside the rule’s reach.

The court similarly rejected Apple’s argument that the suit’s nationwide common law causes of action should be dismissed because the plaintiffs did not plead which state laws govern them.  That analysis is inappropriate for the pleadings stage, and “Apple does not identify which other state law claims might apply or why they would apply over California law,” the opinion states.

Two claims did not survive.  Despite making a variety of health and wellness representations about the watchbands, Apple secured dismissal of the suit’s fraudulent misrepresentations claim because the plaintiffs did not identify the specific claims they relied upon.  The court also dismissed the plaintiffs’ implied warranty of merchantability claims, which were essentially conceded.

The case is Cavalier v. Apple, Inc., No. 25-cv-713 (N.D. Cal.), filed 1/21/2025.

Eggland ‘Free to Roam’ Claim Plausibly Misleading, Court Rules

/in

A proposed class action challenging animal welfare claims on Eggland’s Best cage-free eggs can continue, the Northern District of Illinois ruled on February 27, 2026.

The lawsuit asserts violations of state consumer protection and false advertising laws—the same statutes and “reasonable consumer” standard at the heart of most green marketing litigation—as well as nationwide unjust enrichment claims.

At issue is the statement “free to roam in a pleasant, natural environment” inside cartons of Eggland cage-free eggs, which are sold at a premium.  The plaintiffs allege that this representation is misleading because Eggland facilities are overcrowded and hens suffer neglect.

Eggland moved to dismiss, arguing that the eggs are correctly labeled as cage free—a designation that does not imply “free range” or “pasture raised.”  The company also pointed to certain state statutes defining cage-free environments as ones where hens are “free to roam” and can “exhibit natural behavior.”

The court disagreed, finding that Eggland’s packaging could suggest conditions exceed those of ordinary cage-free eggs.  A reasonable consumer, the court concluded, would read “free to roam” in a “natural” and “pleasant” environment alongside the cage-free claim to imply some outdoor access.  Because Eggland itself acknowledges that cage-free can include outdoor access, that term “does nothing to correct this additional representation.”

The court was unpersuaded that plaintiffs suffered no injury simply because they received cage-free eggs: “Plaintiffs paid a premium not just for cage free eggs, but also for eggs that came from hens that were free to roam in a natural, pleasant environment—something that meets more than the bare minimum requirements of a cage free egg.”

However, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief, finding future injury hypothetical.  “Plaintiffs’ allegations amount to an admission that, based on their knowledge of Eggland’s alleged deception, they will avoid this deception by not purchasing the product,” the opinion states.

The court has since set a March 30 deadline for initial discovery disclosures and a January 29, 2027, deadline for all fact discovery.

The case is Janecyk v. Eggland’s Best, Inc., No. 24-cv-6222 (N.D. Ill.).

Court Applies FTC Green Guides in Igloo Marketing Lawsuit

/in , ,

A proposed class action challenging recycled content, biodegradability, and “Made in USA” claims on Igloo-brand cooler products can proceed, the Eastern District of New York ruled on February 2, 2026.

The case concerns unqualified recycled content and biodegradability claims on the front labels of various Igloo products.  According to the court, these include “Made From Biodegradable Materials” and “Made With Post Consumer Recycled Plastic Material,” which is often accompanied by the chasing arrows recycling symbol.  Igloo also advertises certain products with unqualified “Made in USA” representations.  The plaintiffs, a New York consumer and a Texas consumer, allege that these claims are deceptive and that they would not have purchased the products at the stated price had they known the products lacked these qualities.

The court’s analysis centered on the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) Green Guides, which provide guidance on environmental marketing claims.  Although the guidance does not create independent causes of action, the court emphasized that alleged noncompliance can support deception claims because the Green Guides “illustrate how unqualified representations of a product’s qualities may plausibly deceive and mislead a reasonable consumer.”

With respect to Igloo’s unqualified biodegradability claims, the court observed that the Green Guides caution against such claims for products disposed of in landfills, where conditions do not allow for prompt degradation.  Combined with studies cited by the plaintiffs, this guidance made the plaintiffs’ deception theory plausible at the pleading stage.

Similarly, the court found the company’s recycling content claims plausibly deceptive because they did not disclose that the products were not entirely made of recycled content—despite the Green Guides’ instruction that marketers qualify claims for products containing both recycled and non-recycled content.

The court also held that, at this stage, the plaintiffs had standing to challenge representations made about products they did not purchase.  It noted, however, that Igloo may renew its standing arguments at class certification.

“Made in USA” and Other Claims

The plaintiffs’ “Made in USA” claims also survived dismissal, despite falling outside the scope of the Green Guides.  The court held that the allegations—that only a “minimal amount” of certain materials used by Igloo are produced domestically—were enough at the pleading stage, even without concrete proof that the contested products contain foreign materials.

“Plaintiffs have alleged that the relevant products contain ‘materials’ and ‘full components’ sourced and imported from other countries,” the court wrote.  “This is sufficient to allege that the Made in USA Representations were materially misleading”

Two claims did not survive. The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ breach of express warranty claim for failure to provide pre-suit notice, and dismissed the unjust enrichment claim as duplicative of the statutory and common law claims.

The court repeatedly declined to rule or provide commentary on the merits.  Quoting caselaw, the court emphasized that “‘[a] federal trial judge, with a background and experience unlike that of most consumers, is hardly in a position to declare’ that reasonable consumers would not be misled.”

The case is Lieber v. Igloo Products Corp., No. 25-cv-488 (E.D.N.Y.), filed January 28, 2025.

P&G Wins Dismissal of Dental Floss PFAS Lawsuit

/in ,

A federal court has dismissed a proposed class action alleging that Procter & Gamble misled consumers about the health and environmental qualities of its dental floss due to the alleged presence of PFAS, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish standing.

The suit relied on test results allegedly showing that Oral-B Glide products contain 302,400 ppm of organic fluorine.  The suit also cited results from a separate laboratory that allegedly detected specific PFAS—including four not disclosed by the company, which publicly acknowledges that some Oral-B products contain the chemical PTFE.

In an order issued January 9, 2026, the Southern District of New York concluded that significant gaps in the testing allegations prevented the plaintiff from establishing standing under a price-premium theory of injury.

“Plaintiff does not clarify, among other things, whether the samples tested were taken from products Plaintiff actually purchased; when the samples were collected; how many samples were collected and tested for each product line; or whether all tested samples yielded positive results for PFAS,” the opinion reads.

These deficiencies, as well as insufficient information about whether the test samples were acquired at the same time or within geographic proximity to the purchased products, would also doom arguments that the entire product line was contaminated, the court added.

The plaintiff’s benefit-of-bargain theory fared no better.  The court found no concrete and particularized injury, citing the vague test results, the lack of alleged physical harm, and the plaintiff’s failure to identify a less expensive, PFAS-free dental floss product necessary to support the notion of a premium.

The decision aligns with a growing body of case law dismissing cases challenging marketing claims based on the alleged presence of PFAS for lack of standing, including a recent dismissal involving similar allegations against Coca-Cola, a decision the court cited repeatedly.

The case is Dalewitz v. The Procter & Gamble Co., No. 22-cv-7323 (S.D.N.Y.).  The plaintiff has until February 10, 2026, to file an amended complaint.