© Ton Photographer4289 stock.adobe.com
The US District Court for the Southern District of California has temporarily blocked enforcement of California’s "truth in labelling" law that seeks to limit recyclability claims on packaging unless they meet certain criteria.
Judge William Hayes granted the preliminary injunction on 14 July, preventing Attorney General (AG) Rob Bonta "and all those acting in concert" with him from enforcing the law while litigation over the constitutionality of the statute proceeds.
A group of trade associations filed a lawsuit in March, arguing that the law is unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment and that it violates their First Amendment commercial speech rights. The business groups asked the court to grant a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the law while the litigation continues, citing an "urgent need" for relief before it takes effect on 4 October.
Judge Hayes agreed and granted the temporary injunction after concluding that the trade associations were likely to succeed on the merits of their constitutional claims.
Vagueness
In their motion, the trade groups argued that SB 343 was "unconstitutionally vague" as to what the law required in four ways, saying businesses cannot know whether:
- recycled material "routinely" becomes feedstock for new material;
- materials will be sent to a reclaiming facility consistent with the requirements of the Basel Convention, as required under the law;
- materials contain elements that prevent the recyclability of the packaging; and
- products or packaging are designed to ensure recyclability and do not include any components that prevent recyclability.
In granting the temporary injunction, the judge said the requirement for recycled material to "routinely" become feedstock for use in new products "invites question about how frequently a product, material or package must be turned into feedstock". It depends not only on the capabilities of recycling facilities, but also on market conditions, "which manufacturers cannot control and may not be able to ascertain at the time of design or production".
The law also provides no definitions of "ensure" and "prevent" as they relate to design for recyclability, the judge said.
Speech restrictions
The plaintiff trade groups also claimed that the law affects their members’ First Amendment rights by restricting commercial speech.
The judge recognised that California has "substantial interests in improving recycling rates and reducing consumer confusion", but said the state failed to provide adequate evidence to show the restrictions are necessary.
Instead, the judge said the state’s interests could be "satisfied with less restrictive requirements than SB 343’s broad prohibition on recycling words or imagery".
The American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA), one of the plaintiffs, welcomed the decision. Julie Landry, vice president of government affairs, said: "This ruling is a significant win, not just for our members, but for every business that wants to give consumers accurate information about the products they buy. Paper-based packaging is among the most recyclable in the country, and our members should be able to say so truthfully."
Responding to the ruling, NGOs National Stewardship Action Council (NSAC) and Californians Against Waste (CAW) said the temporary halt to California’s law does not change the underlying issue it was designed to address. "Californians and Americans deserve accurate information about what is and is not recyclable."
Separately, CAW said it was disappointed in the decision. "While we think the state will ultimately prevail, the fact of the matter is that this injunction will allow greenwashing to go unchecked for months, if not years, while the case moves through the courts."
The case is California League of Food Producers et al v Bonta.
This article is part of a new, weekly news service from the Chemical Watch News & Insight team covering packaging regulations around the world. Click here for more details about this new content.