California’s ‘Truth in Labeling’ law faces federal suit

A coalition of farmers, food producers, restaurants, packaging manufacturers and grocers has filed a federal lawsuit challenging California’s Senate Bill 343, calling the law an unconstitutional restriction on free speech that will reduce recycling, confuse consumers and increase cost pressures for California families.

The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, argues that S.B. 343, also known as the “Truth in Labeling” law, operates as government-imposed censorship, prohibiting producers from informing consumers when their packaging is recyclable unless the material satisfies state-developed regulatory criteria the coalition claims are “rigid and arbitrary.”

RELATED: Handling the truth

According to the suit, the plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the law, which takes effect Oct. 4.

Developing a circular economy depends on consumers knowing what and how to recycle, the plaintiffs say, adding that when a dairy farmer ships milk to a grocery store, when a restaurant sends food out in a container, or when a food producer packages berries, nuts or proteins, that packaging needs a clear path back into the recycling stream. The suit claims that S.B. 343 cuts off that communication, and if companies cannot label recyclable packaging as such, that packaging is more likely to end up in a landfill.

“California is about to make it harder, not easier, for families to go green,” says Katie Davey, executive director of the Sacramento-based Dairy Institute of California. “S.B. 343 forces dairy product manufacturers to remove vital recycling guidance from the very cartons Californians rely on every day. This law ignores the reality of our recycling infrastructure and unconstitutionally restricts our right to provide transparent recycling instructions to consumers. We are seeking to stop this policy before it leads to more waste and disrupts our ability to deliver milk to California families and schools.”

The plaintiffs claim that their lawsuit challenges what they describe as a “sweeping, content-based restriction on speech,” in which S.B. 343 bars producers from using widely recognized recycling symbols and statements, even when considered factually accurate, unless packaging meets state-imposed recyclability criteria that do not reflect “real-world recycling capabilities or local program variation.”

Going further, the plaintiffs say criteria outlined in the legislation are “vague and difficult to apply in practice,” with the legality of a recyclable claim dependent on decisions of a multitude of recycling program operators “that are outside the control and knowledge of producers.”

The complaint alleges that S.B. 343 will not further its intent to increase recycling. The plaintiffs say recycling systems depend on consumer participation, and consumer participation depends on clear guidance on the packaging. When recycling guidance disappears from the packaging, the plaintiffs claim consumers lose the information they need about what belongs in recycling bins, creating confusion and reducing recycling participation. The suit also alleges that the law discourages investment in new recyclable materials, “penalizing any innovation for even more sustainable packaging.”

“Companies are already facing penalties and enforcement risk for providing recycling guidance that does not comply with the statute, and the law is already chilling speech and increasing costs as companies alter or remove recycling labels to avoid liability,” the plaintiffs claim.

In addition to the Dairy Institute of California, plaintiffs include the California Restaurant Association, the California Grocers Association, the Pet Food Institute, SNAC International, Californians for Affordable Packaging, the California League of Food Producers, the Flexible Packaging Association, the Print Creative Alliance, the Grower-Shipper Association of Central California, the California Table Grape Commission, the California Strawberry Commission, the California Apple Commission, the California Blueberry Commission, the Olive Oil Commission of California, the California Walnut Commission, the American Forest & Paper Association and the Western Growers Association.

In a statement responding to the suit, the National Stewardship Action Council (NSAC), a co-sponsor of S.B. 343, says it views the legislation as a necessary step toward restoring integrity and trust in the recycling system.

“Misleading recyclability claims have long contributed to consumer confusion, increased contamination and higher system costs for communities and ratepayers,” the Sacramento-based organization says. “When labels do not reflect real-world outcomes, they undermine trust and make it harder for recycling systems to function as intended.”

NSAC claims labels on a package often are the last decision point for the public, and that information needs to be clear, consistent and grounded in reality.

“Recycling only works when materials are turned into new products and packaging,” NSAC says. “That begins with design and continues through the public’s decision point at disposal. Cleaner material streams are essential to building stronger, more resilient recycling systems and supporting domestic end markets.

“S.B. 343 aligns recyclability claims with real-world conditions,” NSAC continues. “This approach is consistent with longstanding legal precedent allowing governments to restrict misleading commercial claims and protect consumers. Don’t lie on the label.”