On July 14, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California halted enforcement of California’s Truth in Recycling law (SB 343), which prohibits use of the “chasing arrows” symbols and other recyclability claims on product packaging unless the packaging meets California’s strict standards. Broadly speaking, under SB 343 an item may not be labeled recyclable unless 60% of California’s population has access to recycling facilities that can actually recycle the product (the 60/60 requirement), must “routinely become feedstock” used to produce new products, and must comply with additional design requirements. Plastic packaging, for example, must adhere to the Association of Plastic Recyclers’ Design Guide, while all products and packaging must be “designed to ensure” recyclability without components that “prevent” recyclability. A coalition of 20 trade associations challenged the law in California League of Food Producers v. Bonta. The court found the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their constitutional claims and granted a preliminary injunction barring the California attorney general (AG) from enforcing the law. Without the injunction, the labeling restrictions would have applied to products manufactured after October 4, 2026.Key findings by the district court suggest some of SB 343’s key components may not survive judicial review.

Key Takeaways

• California’s extended producer responsibility (EPR) law, Senate Bill (SB) 54, is facing a broad constitutional challenge brought by 17 states and the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW).
• The lawsuit targets core features of California’s EPR framework, including source-reduction mandates, recyclability and recycling-rate targets, producer fees, the $500 million annual environmental mitigation surcharge, and mandatory participation in the Circular Action Alliance (CAA).
• The lawsuit does not change current compliance obligations. Unless and until a court issues injunctive relief, California can enforce SB 54 deadlines, reporting requirements, and producer responsibility organization (PRO) participation obligations.
• Companies subject to California’s EPR program should continue building systems to report covered material, evaluate packaging reduction opportunities, and document assumptions underlying their producer-status determinations while the lawsuit proceeds.

• First-of-its-kind program: California’s Responsible Textile Recovery Act of 2024 (SB 707) creates a statewide extended producer responsibility (EPR) framework for apparel and textile articles.
• July 1, 2026 deadline: “Producers” of “covered products” must register with CalRecycle-approved producer responsible organization (PRO) Landbell USA.
• August 13, 2026 workshop: CalRecycle will seek

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) issued a list of companies that are allegedly noncompliant “producers” under Oregon’s extended producer responsibility (EPR) law for packaging and paper products, known as the Recycling Modernization Act (RMA). The list appeared on the Circular Action Alliance’s (CAA) website on April 10, 2026. The CAA is the “Producer Responsibility Organization” that is charged with implementing EPR programs in Oregon, Colorado, and California.

On February 6, 2026, an Oregon district court issued a decision barring the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) from enforcing the nation’s first extended producer responsibility (EPR) law for packaging, food serviceware, and paper products (referred to as “covered products” under Oregon’s law). The very brief order enjoins DEQ from enforcing the state’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (RMA) against the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) and its members, who filed their suit in July 2025, challenging the law and claiming it violated the Oregon and U.S. Constitutions.