Recycling Symbols Under Scrutiny in California: What Companies Should Know About California SB 343

For many consumer product companies, recycling symbols have become routine. They appear on bottles, jars, tubes, cartons, caps, and inserts, often carried over from one label design to the next with little scrutiny. Heads up! California’s SB 343 is about to shake things up.

Beginning with products and packaging manufactured after October 4, 2026, California will impose stricter limits on the use of recycling symbols and claims, including the familiar triangular “chasing arrows” symbol. Products and packaging manufactured before that date are not subject to the new restrictions, even if they are sold later.

Companies whose products are sold in California should use the time before the deadline to confirm that any recyclability claims can be supported under California’s standard.

What SB 343 Changes

SB 343 is often described as California’s “Truth in Labeling” or “Truth in Recycling” law. Its purpose is straightforward: if a label tells consumers that something is recyclable, that claim should reflect what actually happens in California’s recycling system.

Under the law, a product or package that displays the chasing arrows symbol, a chasing arrows symbol around a resin identification code, or another symbol or statement indicating recyclability may be deemed deceptive or misleading unless the item meets California’s recyclability standard.

That standard is more demanding than many companies may expect. It is not enough that a package could theoretically be recycled somewhere, by someone, under the right conditions. The question is whether the material is commonly collected, sorted, and processed in California in a way that results in the material becoming feedstock for new products or packaging.

In general, a product or package must satisfy requirements tied to:

• Collection by recycling programs serving at least 60% of California’s population;
• Sorting by facilities serving at least 60% of recycling programs statewide;
• Regular use of the recovered material as feedstock for new products or packaging; and
• Design and composition features that may affect whether the item can actually be recycled.

For plastic packaging, that means companies cannot look only at the resin number. A rigid PET bottle may present a very different analysis than a flexible pouch, multilayer film, shrink sleeve, pump, cap, or container with adhesives or labeling materials that create recycling problems.

A Labeling Rule, Not a Packaging Ban

SB 343 does not prohibit companies from selling products in packaging that does not qualify as recyclable under California law. The issue is what the company says, shows, or implies about that product or packaging.

A company may decide that a certain package remains the right choice for product quality, shelf life, or other reasons. But if that package does not meet California’s recyclability standard, the company should be careful not to use symbols or language that suggest otherwise.

This includes more than the word “recyclable.” Companies should review any label language or imagery that could direct a consumer to recycle the item, including “recycle me,” “please recycle,” chasing arrows, circular-arrow graphics, recycling instructions, and similar claims in advertising or online product descriptions.

Multi-component packaging can raise separate questions, particularly when one component is recyclable and another is not. Companies should not assume that a past labeling practice remains safe simply because the symbol has appeared on the package for years.

The Litigation Risk

SB 343 does not create a private right of action. Enforcement authority rests with public prosecutors, including the Attorney General and local prosecutors. But that does not eliminate the risk of private litigation. Plaintiffs may still try to use SB 343’s standards to support claims under existing California consumer-protection laws, including claims that recycling symbols or recyclability statements were misleading.

California has a long history of consumer-protection demand letters and class actions based on allegedly misleading product labels. Environmental marketing claims have already become a common target. SB 343 gives plaintiffs’ lawyers a more specific California standard to point to when challenging recycling symbols and recyclability claims under existing consumer-protection statutes.

That is why companies with products in the California market should review their packaging claims before the October 2026 manufacturing deadline. The goal is not only to identify where recycling symbols or claims appear, but also to determine whether the company can support those claims under California’s standard.

Pending Legal Challenge

There is pending federal litigation brought by 18 trade associations challenging SB 343, and the federal district court has been asked to issue a preliminary injunction that could affect the law's timing or enforcement.

We will continue to monitor the litigation and keep you apprised of any developments. While it is possible that implementation of the law could be delayed, companies should not count on that outcome. Packaging changes take time, and the October 4, 2026 deadline is tied to when the product or package is manufactured, not when it is sold. Given the lead time required for label review, artwork changes, supplier coordination, printing, and inventory planning, companies should continue preparing unless and until there is a clear change to the compliance timeline.

Conclusion

Many companies added recycling symbols without any intent to mislead. But under SB 343, intent is not the main issue. The question is whether the claim can be supported under California’s standard.

If it can, the company should have support for that conclusion. If it cannot, the company should consider changing the label, qualifying the claim, removing the symbol, or changing the package.

Companies that address these issues now will be better positioned than those forced to respond after a demand letter arrives.