Introduction

In our earlier Earth Day post, we provided an overview of California Senate Bill 343 — the landmark law that rewrites the rules governing when and how recyclability claims may be made on products and packaging sold in California. We noted that a coalition of trade associations had filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California challenging SB 343 on First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process grounds, and that the case was “still in the very early stages.” We promised that future posts would discuss the status of that case. Promise made, promise kept.

We have an update — and it is a significant one. On July 14, 2026, the Honorable William Q. Hayes issued a 67-page ruling granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, finding SB 343 unconstitutional, and enjoining California Attorney General Rob Bonta and all those acting in concert with him from enforcing SB 343. For businesses that had been racing to assess compliance ahead of the statute’s October 4, 2026 effective date, this ruling provides meaningful — if temporary — breathing room.

But the decision does far more than press pause. It delivers a detailed judicial analysis of SB 343’s constitutional deficiencies across two independent grounds — vagueness under the Fourteenth Amendment, and infringing on free speech under the First Amendment — that will shape the litigation going forward and may influence how California and other states approach recyclability regulation in the future.