For companies that sell packaged goods in California, the legal landscape around recyclability claims shifted significantly this fall. California’s “Truth in Recycling” law (SB 343), carries an October 4, 2026, compliance deadline requiring companies to substantiate recyclability claims, including the chasing-arrows symbol, against strict collection and sorting thresholds. On July 14, 2026, however, a federal court granted a preliminary injunction in California League of Food Producers v. Bonta, pausing enforcement of SB 343 pending litigation.
The injunction does not eliminate underlying legal risk – while it changes the enforcement posture, private class action exposure remains very much alive. Companies that manufacture, market, sell or supply packaged products in California should take note, particularly those making recyclability, recycled content or other environmental claims.
The Stakes Have Not Changed
“Greenwashing” claims – broadly defined as environmental or recyclability representations that allegedly are misleading, unsubstantiated or likely to deceive reasonable consumers – have become a reliable tool for plaintiffs’ attorneys in California. The state’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL) and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) give plaintiffs multiple theories for pursuing companies whose packaging purportedly implies environmental attributes the product cannot substantiate. California is a preferred venue because those statutes are favorable to consumer class actions, and the impact of a California judgment or settlement extends to national supply chains.
The chasing-arrows symbol is ground zero for these disputes. Using that symbol in a way that implies recyclability despite limited recycling infrastructure is a core allegation in active litigation. Claiming packaging is recyclable when it is not recycled at scale, overstating recycled content or incorporating a supplier’s sustainability claims into product marketing without independent substantiation all carry litigation exposure, regardless of whether SB 343 is being enforced.
SB 343 and the Injunction: What They Mean Together
Enacted in 2021, SB 343 restricts use of the chasing-arrows symbol and any recyclability claim on packaging sold in California. The law relies on 60% collection and 60% sorting thresholds to determine whether a material qualifies as recyclable.
The Bonta injunction halts state enforcement while the court considers whether SB 343’s terms are unconstitutionally vague and whether it improperly restricts commercial speech. The court found plaintiffs likely to succeed on both grounds, criticizing language such as “routinely becomes feedstock” and the law’s incorporation of an industry guide as a compliance benchmark. The operative compliance date is now uncertain.
That uncertainty, however, does not equal relief. Plaintiffs’ attorneys do not need a state agency to act; they can file directly under the UCL, FAL and CLRA. SB 343 remains a benchmark plaintiffs cite in discovery and at trial to establish what a reasonable marketer should have known. The Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Green Guides, while not law, serve as national guidance. Packaging that aligns with the Green Guides but falls short of California’s stricter framework can still risk liability in California court.
Where Exposure Is Concentrated
Food and beverage packaging carries the highest profile in active litigation, but meaningful exposure extends further. Seed, fertilizer and crop-protection packaging; retail claims regarding recycled content; supplier-provided sustainability claims incorporated into company marketing; and national labels distributed into California without state-specific review all represent significant risk. Litigation against a retailer can quickly pull in upstream suppliers who provided the packaging or the environmental claims on a product’s label, as illustrated by several proposed class action lawsuits against grocery store chains and other smaller retailers that have implicated many suppliers across the country.
Companies that have not inventoried their claims and documentation before litigation begins are at a structural disadvantage. Experienced plaintiffs’ counsel use state court procedural dynamics, including forum selection and class certification strategy, deliberately and effectively.
Documentation and Governance as a Defense
The most durable protection is substantiation. Documentation and claim governance are the strongest defenses available to companies facing greenwashing scrutiny. That means maintaining records demonstrating why a claim was made, what data supported it and how the company monitored whether conditions changed. It also means establishing a process for reviewing supplier-provided claims before they appear in company marketing and auditing national label content against California-specific standards before distribution.
Practical Starting Points
- Inventory all environmental claims on packaging distributed in California, including chasing-arrows symbols, recycled-content percentages and sustainability language, and flag any claims lacking current substantiation.
- Review supplier agreements and marketing materials to confirm that environmental representations are independently supportable before incorporation into product labels or consumer-facing communications.
- Assess national label content against California standards, recognizing that FTC Green Guides compliance does not protect against California class action claims.
- Build and retain documentation supporting each environmental claim, including the data, methodology and timing of any substantiation review.
- Monitor the Bonta litigation for rulings that will affect the scope and timing of SB 343 enforcement obligations.
- Engage legal counsel early, particularly if your company has received demand letters or relies on third-party sustainability certifications.
For questions about greenwashing litigation risk, California consumer protection law or environmental marketing compliance, please contact Kathleen Fisher Enyeart or Caroline Moos, or your regular Lathrop GPM attorney.