CA’s “Truth In Recycling” Law Compliance Deadline Remains, Despite Federal Court’s Pause On Enforcement

An October 4 deadline is fast approaching for companies to comply with California’s “Truth in Recycling” law (SB 343), despite a federal court order that bars enforcement by the state’s Attorney General Rob Bonta pending further proceedings. The court’s order did not address the law's October 4, 2026, implementation deadline or the ability of a private party to enforce via litigation under California consumer protection laws.

In its July 14 order, granting injunctive relief in California League of Food Producers v. Bonta, No. 26-cv-01675 (S.D. Cal.), the court found that industry challengers are likely to succeed on claims that certain aspects of the law are impermissibly vague or unlawfully restrict commercial speech.

Background on SB 343

Enacted in 2021, SB 343 amends California’s Environmental Marketing Claims Act to align recyclability claims with the realities of California’s recycling system. In doing so, the law shifts the focus away from whether a material is theoretically recyclable and toward whether it is collected, sorted, and recycled in California at specified levels. The criteria in the statute effectively restricts when companies may market products and packaging as recyclable.

The implementation date for the law is tied to CalRecycle’s Material Characterization Report (including updates) regarding what materials are actually collected, sorted, and recycled in California. After CalRecycle issued this report on April 4, 2025, an 18-month transition period began, resulting in an effective compliance date of October 4, 2026, for products and packaging manufactured on or after that date. The milestones during this period are reproduced below:

Source: Reproduced in relevant part from graphic located at https://calrecycle.ca.gov/wcs/recyclinglabels/

Products manufactured before October 4, 2026, are grandfathered in under the law regardless of when they are ultimately sold. During the transition period, companies are expected to evaluate existing recyclability claims, redesign labels and molds where necessary, and develop substantiation demonstrating compliance with the statute.

California’s “Recyclable in the State” Standard

SB 343 added a new section to California’s Public Resource Code (PRC) for marketers that make recyclability claims. CA PRC § 42355.51(a) and (b)(1). By cross-reference, claims are also subject to Section 17580 of the California Business and Professions Code (BPC), California's long-standing environmental claims substantiation law, and enforcement under CA BPC § 17580.5. 

SB 343 specifically governs the use in California of the chasing arrows symbol, a chasing arrows symbol surrounding a resin identification code, or any other statement or symbol indicating recyclability. While this symbol was originally developed to identify different types of plastic resins, it has evolved to be the iconic symbol for recycling.

At the center of the statute is a statewide recyclability test focused on actual recycling practices in California. Under § 42355.51(d)(2) of the law, the legislature added a definition for what is considered “recyclable in the state.” The central conditions are sourced from the federal Green Guides. Namely, for a product to be “recyclable in the state,” the product must meet the following requirements:

• The material type and form is collected for recycling by recycling programs for jurisdictions that collectively encompass at least 60% of the population of the state.
• The material type and form is sorted into defined streams for recycling processes by large volume transfer or processing facilities, as defined in regulations adopted pursuant to Section 43020, that process materials and collectively serve at least 60% of recycling programs statewide, with the defined streams sent to and reclaimed at a reclaiming facility consistent with the requirements of the Basel Convention.

Beyond these initial thresholds, the product or package must be of “a material type and form that routinely becomes feedstock used in the production of new products or packaging.” § 42355.51(b)(1). Additional procedural and composition requirements apply. Under § 42355.51(d)(3), a product or packaging cannot be considered “recyclable in the state” unless the product or packaging meets all of the following criteria, as applicable:

• For plastic packaging, the plastic packaging is designed to not include any components, inks, adhesives, or labels that prevent the recyclability of the packaging according to the APR Design® Guide published by the Association of Plastic Recyclers.
• For plastic products and non-plastic products and packaging, the product or packaging is designed to ensure recyclability and does not include any components, inks, adhesives, or labels that prevent the recyclability of the product or packaging.
• The product or packaging does not contain an intentionally added chemical identified pursuant to specified regulations.
• The product or packaging is not made from plastic or fiber that contains perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) that meet specified criteria.

The federal lawsuit, which was originally filed in March 2026 by a coalition of 18 industry trade associations, is challenging certain aspects of the law: (1) the condition for making a recyclable claim that the material “routinely becomes feedstock used in the production of new products or packaging”; (2) the need to ensure that the materials must be sent to reclamation facilities “consistent with the requirements of the Basel Convention”; (3) the specification that packaging designs have to conform to the Association of Plastic Recyclers’ Design® Guide for plastics packaging; and (4) for non-plastic packaging, the need to “ensure” recyclability and not include components that prevent the product or package from being recycled. The plaintiffs are asking the court to decide whether, due to timing and other issues, these sections of SB 343 are overly vague in their application and/or unlawfully restrict the ability of companies to make more nuanced recyclability claims.

SB 343 Restrictions on Recyclability Claims

If a product is not considered “recyclable in the state” pursuant to § 42355.51, the following provisions apply:

• Displaying the chasing arrows symbol or any other statement indicating the product is recyclable directly on the product deemed to be deceptive or misleading.
• If a product or packaging has multiple material types, a chasing arrows symbol or statement indicating recyclability may be displayed on the external packaging that is considered to be recyclable in the state if the chasing arrows symbol or statement makes clear in the same or greater font, font size, or symbol size which other components of the product or packaging are not recyclable.
• Displaying a chasing arrows symbol or any other statement indicating recyclability on packaging containing a consumable product will be understood to refer only to the packaging. The term “consumable product” is a defined term.

CA PRC § 42355.51(b)(3)(A)-(C). SB 343 requires manufacturers who advertise “through the use of a chasing arrows symbol or by otherwise directing a consumer to recycle the consumer good” to maintain written records of the following information and documentation supporting the validity of the representation:

• The reasons the person believes the representation to be true.
• Any significant adverse environmental impacts directly associated with the production, distribution, use, and disposal of the consumer good.
• Any measures that are taken by the person to reduce the environmental impacts directly associated with the production, distribution, and disposal of the consumer good.
• Violations of any federal, state, or local permits directly associated with the production or distribution of the consumer good.
• Whether, if applicable, the consumer good conforms with the uniform standards contained in the Federal Trade Commission Guidelines for Environmental Marketing Claims for the use of the terms “recycled,” “recyclable,” “biodegradable,” “photodegradable,” or “ozone friendly.”

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17580(a). However, under SB 343, use of the chasing arrows symbol or “recyclable” will not be misleading if “the consumer good is required by any federal or California law or regulation to display a chasing arrows symbol.” See id. § 17580(e) (including beverage containers subject to the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act (CA PRC Division 12.1, commencing with Section 14500).

CalRecycle’s Findings on Recyclability

CalRecycle’s Material Characterization Report is authoritative for determining whether many materials qualify as recyclable in California. The statewide material characterization studies of what is actually collected, sorted, and recycled were completed in 2023–2024 for the final report published on April 4, 2025. An update was issued on August 8, 2025, based on new data submissions (e.g., cartons). The statute requires updates to the Material Characterization Report every five years, with the next revision due in 2027. For packages and products that are not included in CalRecycle’s Material Characterization Report, companies are left to make and document their own determinations.

Conclusion

Although the district court has temporarily blocked California’s enforcement of portions of SB 343, the decision does not suspend the law’s October 4, 2026, implementation date. Companies should also be mindful that significant portions of SB 343's framework may remain in place, even if the plaintiffs in California League of Food Producers v. Bonta ultimately prevail on some or all of their claims.

In December 2025, federal legislation was introduced to prevent SB 343 from going into effect, but the bill has not advanced far beyond its introduction. The Packaging and Claims Knowledge (PACK) Act (H.R. 6832), sponsored by Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX), would establish national standards for “recyclable,” “compostable,” or “reusable” claims on consumer product packaging and includes an express federal preemption clause.

Overall, businesses that rely on recyclability claims or display recycling symbols on products or packaging sold in California should continue reviewing their practices for labeling, substantiation, packaging design, and recordkeeping while closely monitoring further developments in the litigation.