Key Takeaways

  • A California judge has approved a preliminary injunction blocking the imminent enforcement of SB 343, the "truth in labeling" law passed in 2021. The law aims to reduce consumer confusion by ensuring that recycling symbols, such as chasing arrows, are not used on packaging until specific criteria are met.
  • The law was set to take effect on October 4, posing compliance challenges for businesses with packaging labels in California and nationwide. Packaging industry groups, including the Flexible Packaging Association and the American Forest & Paper Association, along with more than a dozen other organizations, filed a federal lawsuit in March, arguing that SB 343 restricts free speech.
  • After a hearing in early June, the ruling was issued this week. Judge William Q. Hayes found the First Amendment challenge to be meritorious. California Attorney General Rob Bonta, the defendant in this case, is now "enjoined from enforcing SB 343 until further order of the court."

Deep Dive

In issuing the stay, the judge noted that SB 343's provisions go beyond what is necessary to achieve its stated goals. He supported the plaintiffs' arguments on vagueness, including provisions on how to determine if something is recyclable, which are tied to certain aspects of the Basel Convention and APR design guidelines.

The judge also stated that while the law aims to eliminate consumer confusion, increase recycling rates, and reduce landfill waste in California, the existing evidence is insufficient to support these goals. The order states: "The current record shows, to the contrary, that SB 343's requirements would lead manufacturers to forgo making recyclability claims to avoid enforcement risks, even though such claims could provide consumers with environmental information."

Julie Landry, vice president of government affairs at the American Forest & Paper Association, called the ruling "a significant victory not only for our members but for every business that wants to provide accurate product information to consumers."

Dan Felton, president and CEO of the Flexible Packaging Association, said the organization is still reviewing the preliminary injunction to understand its full impact. In an email statement, he said: "In the meantime, we maintain that SB 343 restricts our ability to provide important recycling information and relies on standards that do not always reflect real-world recycling conditions."

Californians Against Waste, which supports SB 343, condemned the decision. In an email statement, its advocacy director Nick Lapis said: "SB 343 is a straightforward truth-in-advertising law. It does not prohibit companies from making environmental marketing claims; it simply requires that recyclability claims reflect reality. The idea that companies have a First Amendment right to make misleading recyclability claims overturns decades of consumer protection law."

Lapis said the organization "believes California will ultimately prevail," but noted that this delay reverses a level playing field. He said: "Many companies have invested significant time and money redesigning packaging or switching to materials that are truly recyclable under California's recycling system. These companies should not be forced to compete with businesses that have not made the same investments yet can make the same marketing claims."

Another landmark California packaging policy, the upcoming Extended Producer Responsibility and Source Reduction Act (SB 54), is also currently facing multiple other pending lawsuits.

One of the main challenges SB 343 poses for brands is that many businesses sell products nationwide, making it difficult to adjust packaging for a specific jurisdiction. In December, Congress introduced the Packaging Responsibility and Communication Act (Pack Act), supported by Ameripen, which aims to establish a federal labeling framework.

Editor's note: This story has been updated with additional information.