California Approved Greenwashing?
Not so fast.
What the recent court decision on California’s SB 343 (“Truth in Recycling” Law) really means for your business.
What happened?
A coalition of trade associations, including the Independent Beauty Association, challenged California’s SB 343 (the “Truth in Recycling” law) as unconstitutional. The law established six criteria for making recyclability claims (including the chasing arrows symbol) for products sold in California.
On July 14, 2026, a federal district court in California issued a preliminary injunction, barring enforcement of SB 343.
Behind the scenes…
Although California has a substantial interest in improving recycling rates and reducing consumer confusion, the Court found that California had not shown that SB 343 would advance those interests. In fact, a likely outcome of SB 343 could be that manufacturers would drop recyclability claims to avoid liability, which would increase landfill volume and consumer confusion.
Among the Court’s findings, SB 343 bars qualified, truthful, partial recyclability statements that would empower consumers to make informed recycling decisions.
What’s SB 343?
Let’s back up. California’s SB 343 restricted when a product or its packaging could be labeled or marketed as “recyclable.”
Under SB 343, it is deceptive to use the chasing arrows symbol or otherwise indicate an item is recyclable unless it is considered recyclable under a heightened standard of actual recyclability. A product or its packaging must meet all six of the following criteria:
The material is collected for recycling by programs covering at least 60% of California’s population.
The material is properly sorted for recycling by facilities serving at least 60% of the population and reclaimed according to the Basel Convention.
The material does not include components, inks, additives, or labels that prevent recyclability.
The material is designed to ensure recyclability.
The material does not contain certain chemicals (including certain heavy metals and PFAS above 100ppm.
The material is not made from plastic or fiber with intentionally added PFAS or PFAS above 100 ppm total organic fluorine.
Brands struggled with compliance…
SB 343 created significant compliance challenges for brands. Meeting the elevated standards for recyclability often required brands to redesign packaging through design and material changes, as well as create new labelling.
Another major challenge that brands faced when complying with SB 343 was the direct contradiction with other state laws, which specifically require the use of the chasing arrows symbol and on-pack Resin Identification Codes.
What does the temporary injunction mean?
Enforcement of SB 343 is now preliminarily enjoined while the case proceeds toward a decision on the merits.
The October 4, 2026 compliance date for SB 343 is paused.
Businesses will not face enforcement by the Attorney General.
Note, SB 343 has not been struck down or repealed. If the plaintiffs do not prevail in the underlying lawsuit, the injunction will be dissolved.
So, I can say whatever I want?
Definitely not. False or misleading recyclability claims can still create liability under California’s false advertising, unfair competition, and consumer protection statutes.
What’s the best way for my brand to move forward amidst this uncertainty?
Companies should still make best efforts to build strong, substantiated environmental marketing claims, including those related to recyclability.
Refer to the FTC’s Green Guides for best practices.
Build a cross-functional strategy so that marketing, product development, and packaging teams are all involved in claims development and review.
*
To learn more about how Source Beauty can help your company design packaging strategies that maximize value and minimize costs, you can contact us here. And to stay updated on the latest in sustainability, packaging, and supply chains, join the Source Beauty Download for quarterly digests.
