California Recycling Law Enforcement Delayed

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

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

RECYCLING REGULATION NEWS Federal judge has halted California’s "Truth in Recycling" law. The law would have banned the "chasing arrows" symbol on non-recyclable items. The enforcement date was set for October 2026. Industry groups sued the state over free speech protections. The court agreed that the law acts as government censorship. Proponents argue misleading labels confuse shoppers and harm the planet. Opponents claim the law hurts businesses and raises family costs. This ruling stalls a major effort to fight greenwashing in packaging. It highlights a massive clash between environmental rules and corporate speech. Where should we draw the line between protecting consumers and protecting free speech? Seems a bit strange to me, and incredibly misleading to the consumer?

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.

A federal court has preliminarily enjoined enforcement of California’s SB 343 “Truth in Recycling” law, finding that its labeling restrictions are likely unconstitutionally vague and violate First Amendment protections for commercial speech. The ruling delays major changes to recyclability labeling requirements. The third installment of Steptoe’s Stepping Into Sustainable Packaging series breaks down the ruling and its practical implications for businesses navigating packaging sustainability requirements.

A federal court has preliminarily enjoined enforcement of California’s SB 343 “Truth in Recycling” law, finding that its labeling restrictions are likely unconstitutionally vague and violate First Amendment protections for commercial speech. The ruling delays major changes to recyclability labeling requirements. The third installment of Steptoe’s Stepping Into Sustainable Packaging series breaks down the ruling and its practical implications for businesses navigating packaging sustainability requirements.

A federal court has preliminarily enjoined enforcement of California’s SB 343 “Truth in Recycling” law, finding that its labeling restrictions are likely unconstitutionally vague and violate First Amendment protections for commercial speech. The ruling delays major changes to recyclability labeling requirements. The third installment of Steptoe’s Stepping Into Sustainable Packaging series breaks down the ruling and its practical implications for businesses navigating packaging sustainability requirements.

A federal court has preliminarily enjoined enforcement of California’s SB 343 “Truth in Recycling” law, finding that its labeling restrictions are likely unconstitutionally vague and violate First Amendment protections for commercial speech. The ruling delays major changes to recyclability labeling requirements. The third installment of Steptoe’s Stepping Into Sustainable Packaging series breaks down the ruling and its practical implications for businesses navigating packaging sustainability requirements.

A federal court has preliminarily enjoined enforcement of California’s SB 343 “Truth in Recycling” law, finding that its labeling restrictions are likely unconstitutionally vague and violate First Amendment protections for commercial speech. The ruling delays major changes to recyclability labeling requirements. The third installment of Steptoe’s Stepping Into Sustainable Packaging series breaks down the ruling and its practical implications for businesses navigating packaging sustainability requirements.