California Producer Responsibility Legislation Sparks Lawsuit

A federal judge has temporarily blocked enforcement of California’s SB 343 “Truth in Recycling” law. SB 343 was scheduled to apply to products and packaging manufactured after October 4, 2026. The law would restrict the use of chasing arrows, recyclability statements, and other recycling-related claims unless the packaging meets California’s criteria for being considered recyclable. The court granted a preliminary injunction after finding that the groups challenging the law were likely to succeed on portions of their First Amendment claim. For now, the California Attorney General is prohibited from enforcing SB 343 while the litigation continues. But this is not the end of California packaging regulation. The ruling does not pause or eliminate SB 54, California’s extended producer responsibility and source reduction law. Producers still need to prepare for EPR reporting, fees, source reduction requirements, and the statewide 2032 targets, including: • 100% of covered packaging recyclable or compostable • 65% of single-use plastic packaging actually recycled • A 25% reduction in single-use plastic There are also important connections between SB 343 and SB 54, particularly because SB 54 relies on recyclability criteria established through SB 343. We will be watching closely to see whether the litigation leads to changes, clarification, or greater alignment between the two laws. For brands, the takeaway is simple: do not stop preparing. The labeling requirements may be temporarily paused, but California’s broader packaging obligations are still moving forward. Article: https://lnkd.in/gA7NhBnw #Packaging #EPR #SB54 #SB343 #Sustainability #PackagingCompliance #Recycling

A federal judge has temporarily blocked enforcement of California’s SB 343 “Truth in Recycling” law. SB 343 was scheduled to apply to products and packaging manufactured after October 4, 2026. The law would restrict the use of chasing arrows, recyclability statements, and other recycling-related claims unless the packaging meets California’s criteria for being considered recyclable. The court granted a preliminary injunction after finding that the groups challenging the law were likely to succeed on portions of their First Amendment claim. For now, the California Attorney General is prohibited from enforcing SB 343 while the litigation continues. But this is not the end of California packaging regulation. The ruling does not pause or eliminate SB 54, California’s extended producer responsibility and source reduction law. Producers still need to prepare for EPR reporting, fees, source reduction requirements, and the statewide 2032 targets, including: • 100% of covered packaging recyclable or compostable • 65% of single-use plastic packaging actually recycled • A 25% reduction in single-use plastic There are also important connections between SB 343 and SB 54, particularly because SB 54 relies on recyclability criteria established through SB 343. We will be watching closely to see whether the litigation leads to changes, clarification, or greater alignment between the two laws. For brands, the takeaway is simple: do not stop preparing. The labeling requirements may be temporarily paused, but California’s broader packaging obligations are still moving forward. Article: https://lnkd.in/d8Cmric5 #Packaging #EPR #SB54 #SB343 #Sustainability #PackagingCompliance #Recycling

NAW v. OREGON EPR CASE. The NAW is challenging Oregon's EPR law, and if it succeeds, it could undermine the authority of all state EPR programs. Businesses aren't pushing back against recycling, they're asking for rules that are practical, predictable, and fairly applied across the supply chain. It also highlights consumer behavior as a critical missing piece. Producers can redesign packaging, pay EPR fees and improve recyclability, but those efforts only go so far if materials are still thrown in the trash or contaminated in the recycling stream. One thing is clear, a broader discussion is needed about balancing producer responsibility with investments in consumer education, standardized recycling systems, and the infrastructure needed to actually increase recovery rates. Otherwise, we're only solving part of the problem.

On July 14, 2026, a California federal district court granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of California’s SB 343, commonly known as the “Truth in Recycling” law. The law’s restrictions on recyclability claims were scheduled to take effect on October 4, 2026, but enforcement is now indefinitely delayed pending further court action. My colleagues, Antonia Stamenova-Dancheva, Anushka R. Stein, and I discuss the court decision’s important implications for manufacturers, brand owners, and others navigating evolving packaging and environmental marketing regulations in California. Read more here. https://lnkd.in/ezzryw83  

⚖️This is July’s Waste360 Policy in Practice, where we put recent recycling industry policy developments into an actionable context. This month was all about lawsuits, with the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) trial against Oregon’s packaging EPR program getting its week in court, as well as preliminary injunction action in several California cases. Read More: https://lnkd.in/eYUpPmBZ

From the Guardian: "A groundbreaking California law that compels packaging producers to phase out single-use plastics is already sparking anger from the chemicals industry and environmental groups just weeks after going into effect." Read the full story: https://lnkd.in/g-9c2BHn

With California’s Individual Source Reduction Plan deadline of August 1 fast approaching, brands selling packaged products in California are under pressure to model, document, and submit defensible plans to reduce pollution, industry experts say.

Packaging recycling laws are facing a new test—in court. On July 14, a federal judge temporarily blocked enforcement of California’s SB 343 “Truth in Recycling” labeling requirements while the legal challenge proceeds. Three days later, a federal court concluded a five-day trial challenging Oregon’s packaging EPR program. A decision remains pending. Together, the cases raise broader questions about recyclability claims, producer fees, interstate commerce and the authority granted to producer responsibility organizations. As more states move from enacting packaging and recycling laws to implementing them, the outcomes could influence how these programs are structured nationwide.

On July 14, a federal judge blocked enforcement of California’s new “truth in labeling” law regarding recyclability claims, and affected businesses should monitor this case as the ban on enforcement is not final and will ultimately depend on the final resolution. Read more on our Tox of the Town blog: https://buff.ly/K0SSWKY Sedina Banks, Sherry Jackman, Bryce Lourié, Kaylinn Charnley #Recycling #Packaging #Environment

A federal judge has blocked California’s “Truth in Recycling” law, which would restrict the familiar chasing-arrows symbol to packaging that is actually recycled at meaningful rates. Industry groups hail the ruling as a free-speech victory, while environmental advocates warn it undermines efforts to curb misleading marketing. https://ow.ly/mUmM50Zqc0e