California’s Truth in Recycling Law

For decades, the familiar chasing arrows symbol on product packaging has been one of the most recognized icons in American consumer culture. Most shoppers rightly assume that symbol means a product is recyclable. In many cases, that assumption is misguided. Companies have placed recycling indicators on packaging that, in reality, has little to no chance of being processed through standard recycling programs.

California has decided to address this problem. In 2021, the state enacted Senate Bill 343, now widely referred to as the Truth in Recycling law. This legislation is among the most significant environmental labeling reforms in U.S. history, and its compliance deadline is October 4, 2026. As that date approaches, consumers and legal advocates are paying close attention to which companies are adjusting their practices and which ones are not.

If you purchased a product based on its recyclability label and that label was false or misleading, you may have legal options. The Lyon Firm represents consumers nationwide in class action and consumer fraud litigation, and our attorneys are actively monitoring Truth in Recycling developments.

WHAT IS CALIFORNIA SB 343?

Senate Bill 343 was signed into law in October 2021 by California Governor Gavin Newsom. The legislation was authored by Senator Ben Allen and directed the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, known as CalRecycle, to conduct a statewide material characterization study. That study was finalized and published on April 4, 2025. Its release triggered an 18-month compliance countdown, bringing the enforcement date to October 4, 2026.

The core purpose of the law is straightforward: a product or package may not display the chasing arrows symbol or any other indicator of recyclability unless it actually meets California’s defined recyclability standards. Those standards are grounded in real-world data, not theoretical potential.

Under SB 343, a product or packaging qualifies as recyclable only if it meets all of the following criteria:

• It is collected by curbside recycling programs serving at least 60 percent of California’s population
• It is sorted into defined recycling streams by at least 60 percent of the state’s recycling programs
• It routinely becomes feedstock used in the production of new products or packaging
• It meets design and composition requirements, meaning no component can be classified as non-recyclable under established industry guidelines

This framework is commonly called the 60/60 threshold, and it represents a meaningful shift from the way recyclability has historically been defined and marketed.

WHY THIS LAW MATTERS TO CONSUMERS

The problem SB 343 targets is not new. Consumer products companies have long applied recycling symbols to packaging that fails to meet the practical requirements of most recycling infrastructure. Because recycling programs vary significantly by region, and because many types of plastics are difficult or impossible to sort and reprocess economically, the chasing arrows symbol has often functioned as a marketing tool rather than an accurate environmental disclosure.

Studies and investigations have shown that the vast majority of plastic produced in the United States has never been recycled. Yet products bearing the recycling symbol continued to be sold to consumers who made purchasing decisions based on that symbol. Many consumers chose those products specifically because they believed they were being environmentally responsible. That belief was, in many instances, manufactured by the companies selling those products.

SB 343 provides a legal framework for holding companies accountable when their recyclability claims do not reflect what actually happens to those materials in California’s recycling system. The law subjects false or misleading recyclability claims to civil enforcement under California’s false advertising statutes, specifically Business and Professions Code Section 17200, which allows private parties who have suffered economic harm to pursue civil actions.

WHO IS SUBJECT TO SB 343?

The law applies broadly. Any manufacturer, importer, distributor, or retailer that sells products or packaging in California bearing a recyclability claim must comply with SB 343’s requirements for products and packaging manufactured after October 4, 2026. This includes:

• Consumer goods brands
• Packaging manufacturers
• Food and beverage companies
• Personal care product makers
• Retailers that apply their own store-brand labeling

The law also imposes mandatory recordkeeping requirements that are already in effect. Any company making an environmental marketing claim, including placing the chasing arrows symbol on a product, must maintain written documentation to support that claim. Critically, those records must be made available to any member of the public upon request. This provision has significant legal implications, as it essentially requires companies to pre-assemble documentation that would otherwise have to be obtained through litigation discovery.

THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE

Violations of SB 343 carry serious financial consequences. Civil penalties can reach up to $2,000 per violation. Depending on how courts define what constitutes a single violation, a company producing tens of thousands of improperly labeled units could face liability measured in the tens of millions of dollars.

Beyond the statutory penalties, violators may face civil suits under California’s Unfair Competition Law. Private enforcement allows any consumer who suffered economic harm as a result of misleading recyclability claims to pursue legal action. In practice, this creates substantial exposure for companies that continue to label non-recyclable products with the chasing arrows symbol or other green marketing language after the October 2026 deadline.

Additionally, the California Attorney General and local jurisdictions have independent authority to bring civil enforcement actions against companies that fail to comply.

AN INDUSTRY LEGAL CHALLENGE IS ALREADY UNDERWAY

It is worth noting that the law is not without opposition. In March 2026, a coalition of trade associations led by the California League of Food Producers filed a federal lawsuit challenging SB 343 on constitutional grounds. The lawsuit, filed in the Southern District of California, alleges that the law amounts to compelled speech in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The plaintiffs also argue that the law’s standards are unconstitutionally vague and that they were not provided adequate notice about which materials qualify as recyclable.

The litigation raises important questions about how courts will balance commercial speech protections against California’s interests in preventing consumer deception. With the compliance deadline approaching, companies and consumers alike should monitor how this case develops.

However, regardless of the outcome of that litigation, the broader legal trend is clear: regulators and courts have shown increasing willingness to scrutinize environmental marketing claims, and companies that have relied on vague or misleading sustainability language face growing legal risk.

WHAT CONSUMERS CAN DO

If you have purchased products in California based on recyclability claims that you now believe to be false or inaccurate, there are several steps worth considering:

• Save packaging materials, receipts, and any advertising that contains recyclability claims
• Note whether the product’s materials appear on CalRecycle’s published list of items that meet the 60/60 threshold
• Research whether the company has publicly committed to compliance with SB 343 or has made statements about its environmental claims
• Consult with an attorney to evaluate whether the purchasing decisions you made were influenced by claims that do not withstand legal scrutiny

Consumer protection law in California is designed to address exactly these situations. When a company profits from a claim that misleads buyers into paying more for a product, or into choosing one product over another based on false environmental information, that conduct may give rise to a legal claim.

HOW THE LYON FIRM CAN HELP

The Lyon Firm has extensive experience representing consumers in class action litigation involving deceptive marketing, consumer fraud, and environmental misrepresentation. Our attorneys have worked on cases involving some of the largest companies in the world, and we understand how to build cases that translate complex regulatory and scientific evidence into clear legal arguments.

California’s Truth in Recycling law creates a new standard for accountability in environmental labeling. When companies fail to meet that standard and consumers are harmed as a result, the law provides meaningful avenues for redress. Our team is monitoring SB 343 enforcement closely and is actively evaluating potential class action claims on behalf of California consumers who may have been misled by false recyclability labels.

There is no cost to speak with our legal team. We offer free, confidential consultations and represent clients on a contingency basis, meaning you pay nothing unless we recover compensation for you. The Lyon Firm is a nationally recognized class action and product liability law firm with offices in California and Ohio. Lead attorney Joseph Lyon has represented clients in all 50 states and has been involved in more than 40 Multi-District Litigations in federal and state court.

If you believe you have been affected by misleading recycling claims on products you purchased in California, contact The Lyon Firm today to discuss your legal options. Contact us today for a free and confidential case evaluation.