Federal Court Blocks California “Chasing Arrows” Labeling Law
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California issued a preliminary injunction yesterday, blocking enforcement of California Senate Bill 343 (SB 343), the State’s recyclability labeling law. The challenge was brought by a coalition of California and national trade associations on First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment grounds.
SB 343 would have sharply limited the use of the “chasing arrows” recycling symbol, resin identification codes, and other recyclability claims unless packaging met California’s detailed requirements, including the state’s “60/60” collection and sorting thresholds and a showing that the material routinely becomes feedstock for new products. Judge William Q. Hayes found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on several constitutional claims, including that the law’s standards are too vague and that its restrictions on truthful recyclability claims raise First Amendment concerns.
The injunction is broad — the court barred California Attorney General Rob Bonta and those acting with him from enforcing any portion of SB 343 pending further order. Unless the injunction is stayed or reversed, SB 343’s October 4, 2026, effective date will not take effect as scheduled.
Implications for ILMA Members
Although the Association is not a party to the SB 343 case, the ruling is important for ILMA members. Many packaged lubricants use HDPE containers with resin identification codes, recycling symbols, and disposal instructions. Member companies whose products are distributed and sold in California have been facing costly decisions about California-specific labels, packaging redesigns, or separate inventory streams.
For now, those immediate compliance pressures are on hold. However, the ruling is preliminary, not final. California is expected to appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and the law could still be reinstated or modified later. More broadly, the SB 343 injunction, the Oregon extended producer responsibility (EPR) trial, and the pending SB 54 lawsuit in California and ILMA’s Colorado EPR challenge together signal that courts are giving serious scrutiny to the constitutional foundations of state packaging mandates.
SB 343 is Part of a Larger California Packaging Regime
The now-enjoined SB 343 does not operate in isolation. It is one component of a suite of interlocking California packaging mandates that includes SB 54, the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act — the State’s EPR law — as well as recycled-content requirements and related labeling statutes. SB 343’s recyclability criteria were designed to work in tandem with SB 54’s producer responsibility framework, which requires producers of covered packaging to register with a producer responsibility organization, report data, pay fees, and meet recycling and source-reduction targets.
SB 54 is itself the subject of a pending federal constitutional challenge brought by 17 state attorneys general (State of Nebraska et al. v. Heller), against CalRecycle’s recently finalized SB 54 regulations.
The SB 343 injunction thus temporarily removes one pillar of the California regime while the constitutionality of its EPR centerpiece remains to be resolved by the courts.
Oregon EPR Trial Underway
The constitutional scrutiny of state packaging laws extends beyond California. Today marks the third day of the five-day bench trial in National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors v. Feldon in federal court in Portland. The case is the first constitutional challenge to a state extended producer responsibility (EPR) law to reach trial and tests Oregon’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act, the nation’s first implemented EPR program.
The trial centers on two claims: whether Oregon unconstitutionally delegated governmental authority, including fee-setting and audit authority, to the private producer responsibility organization, Circular Action Alliance, and whether the law violates the dormant Commerce Clause by placing an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce.
In February, the court issued a preliminary injunction pausing enforcement of Oregon’s EPR statute on constitutional grounds, although the relief was limited to the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) and its members. Observers expect a decision by late summer or fall. The ruling, particularly on the delegation and Commerce Clause claims, is expected to have significant implications for similar constitutional challenges to EPR programs in Colorado and California, including ILMA’s pending litigation challenging Colorado’s EPR program.
