For years, litigation over environmental marketing has focused on whether companies have overstated the sustainability of their products. Regulators have challenged “green” advertising, consumers have filed class actions over “clean” and “sustainable” products claims, and brands have faced increasing scrutiny over the environmental promises they make. A new federal court decision out of California reframes the debate. Rather than asking whether companies are saying too much, the case asks whether the government has gone too far in restricting what companies may say about the recyclability of their packaging.
In a July 14 ruling, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of California’s Senate Bill 343 (“SB 343”), finding that a coalition of 21 industry trade associations is likely to succeed on certain First Amendment and Due Process claims. The decision temporarily halts a law that was set to take effect on October 4 and raises broader questions about the constitutional limits of regulating environmental marketing.
A First Amendment Challenge
Enacted in 2021, SB 343 seeks to combat what California views as misleading recyclability claims by limiting companies’ use of the “chasing arrows” symbol and certain other recyclability representations unless specified statutory criteria were met. In their March 2026 complaint, the plaintiffs argued that SB 343 impermissibly restricts truthful commercial speech. Applying the Supreme Court’s Central Hudson framework, Judge William Q. Hayes concluded that they are likely to succeed on that claim for purposes of obtaining preliminary injunctive relief.
Although California has a substantial interest in reducing consumer confusion and improving recycling outcomes, the court found that the state did not show that SB 343’s restrictions will materially advance those interests or that they are no more extensive than necessary.
The court also expressed concern that the law could discourage companies from providing recyclability information altogether. Faced with uncertain compliance obligations and potential enforcement, businesses may simply remove recycling symbols and related information from packaging – the latest iteration of “greenhushing” – rather than risk liability, leaving consumers with less environmental information instead of more.
The court also found that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that portions of SB 343 are unconstitutionally vague. Judge Hayes pointed to standards tied to whether packaging “routinely becomes feedstock,” compliance with the evolving Association of Plastic Recyclers’ Design Guide, and references to the Basel Convention. Because those standards may change over time or incorporate evolving external criteria, the court concluded that businesses may lack adequate notice of what the law requires.
THE BIGGER PICTURE: Although the case centers on recyclability claims, its implications could extend much further. California has long served as the country’s de facto regulator of consumer product packaging because many brands comply with its requirements nationwide rather than produce separate packaging for different states. The ruling therefore represents more than a temporary pause in the enforcement of one state’s recycling law; it suggests that constitutional challenges may play a growing role as states adopt increasingly detailed rules governing recyclability, sustainability claims, and other environmental disclosures.
That does not mean SB 343 is doomed. The ruling is preliminary, and California is expected to continue defending the law on the merits. Even so, the decision underscores an emerging legal tension. Recent sustainability litigation has largely focused on whether companies have exaggerated their environmental claims. SB 343 presents the inverse question: How far can the government go in restricting environmental claims that companies contend are truthful and non-misleading?
As lawmakers continue expanding environmental labeling requirements, courts may increasingly be asked to answer that question – and, in doing so, define the constitutional boundaries of sustainability regulation.
The case is California League of Food Producers v. Bonta, 3:26-cv-01675 (S.D. Cal.).
Share
