On October 5, 2021, California enacted a law—Senate Bill 343 (“SB 343”), also known as the “Truth in Recycling” law—that made it unlawful for any company to “offer for sale, sell, distribute, or import into the state any product or packaging for which a deceptive or misleading claim about the recyclability of the product or packaging is made.”[1] 

The law went on to state that a claim about the recyclability of the product or packaging is deceptive or misleading if: 

1. the “product or packaging…displays a chasing arrows symbol, a chasing arrows symbol surrounding a resin identification code, or any other symbol or statement indicating the product or packaging is recyclable, or otherwise directing the consumer to recycle the product or packaging”; and 

2. “the product or packaging is [not] considered recyclable in the state pursuant to subdivision (d)” or “of a material type and form that routinely becomes feedstock used in the production of new products or packaging.”[2]

Subdivision (d), however, does not clearly define what constitutes a “recyclable” product or packaging. It, instead, instructs the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery to issue a “material characterization study” from which companies are to determine whether their products or packaging are of a “material type and form” that is:

1. “collected for recycling by recycling programs for jurisdictions that collectively encompass at least 60 percent of the population of the state”; and 

2. “sorted into defined streams for recycling processes by large volume transfer or processing facilities…that process materials and collectively serve at least 60 percent of recycling programs statewide, with the defined streams sent to and reclaimed at a reclaiming facility consistent with the requirements of the Basel Convention.”[3] 

Companies had “18 months after the date the department publishes the first material characterization study” to comply with the above requirements.[4]   The first material characterization study was published on April 4, 2025, so the deadline to comply is October 4, 2026. 

If, after reading the above, you are still confused what is and is not considered “recyclable,” you are not alone.  In fact, on March 17, 2026, a number of industry associations filed a complaint against the state of California, seeking prospective declaratory and injunctive relief on the grounds that SB 343 violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.  The associations claim that SB 343 imposes unconstitutional, content-based limitations on commercial speech and is so vague that it “fails to provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited.”

For companies engaged in the business of producing “recyclable” products and packaging, the importance of the association’s lawsuit cannot be overstated because, at least in the consumer class-action world, SB 343 checks the boxes that make statutes enticing to plaintiffs’ counsel.  First, although SB 343 does not include a private right of action, it can be used as a predicate violation for other claims that do, like California’s Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law.  Second, the standards are so vague and the issues are so fact-intensive that getting out of an SB 343 lawsuit at the pleading stage, before having to engage in costly discovery, is difficult, if not impossible. Put simply, SB 343 creates the all-too-common situation in California of “heads the company loses, tails the plaintiff wins.” 

In fact, despite SB 343 still being months away from taking effect, it and the department’s material characterization studies have already formed the basis of several class action lawsuits, and, aside from the associations’ lawsuit, there is no end in sight. 

Producing recyclable products and packaging is a goal for many companies, but achieving that goal means nothing if the law prevents companies from telling consumers that the products and packaging can be recycled.  Furthermore, if companies are faced with a choice between exposing themselves to crippling liability or simply not labeling their products as recyclable, few, if any, would choose the former, which benefits no one.  Fingers crossed the associations prevail.