Environmental Groups Challenge California's Extended Producer Responsibility Regulations for Being Too Lenient

On 2 June 2026, environmental groups Oceana, National Resources Defense Council, and Californians Against Waste Foundation filed a petition in San Francisco Superior Court challenging regulations adopted by CalRecycle in May 2026 implementing SB 54, California’s packaging extended producer responsibility statute.¹ The groups allege that the regulations do not fully align with the statute, specifically that the regulations would permit certain recycling methods that they claim produce significant amounts of hazardous waste and potentially expand categories of what would be considered exempt from the statute’s recycling mandates.

One particular focus of the petition is how the regulations treat advanced recycling technologies.² SB 54 defines “recycling” in a way that excludes combustion, incineration, energy generation, fuel production, and other disposal, and requires covered material to be sent to a responsible end market.³ The final regulations have been interpreted by some stakeholders as allowing certain advanced recycling pathways to properly qualify under SB 54 pursuant to specified conditions. The petition challenges whether that approach is consistent with the statute’s requirements. Determination of this issue will affect whether such processes can be viewed as potentially compliant with SB 54’s recyclability mandates.

Litigation Adds to Existing Legal Challenges to California’s Recycling Regulations

This litigation comes amid broader scrutiny of California’s recycling-related laws, including a constitutional challenge to SB 343 brought in federal court by trade associations representing retailers, restaurants, packaging suppliers, and cosmetic, food, paper product and pet food manufacturers,⁴ where plaintiffs are seeking to enjoin portions of California’s “Truth in Recycling” law on First Amendment and due process grounds. SB 343 restricts use of the chasing-arrows symbol and other recyclability claims unless products or packaging meet California’s statutory criteria for being “recyclable in the state.” Industry challengers have objected that the framework sets rigid statewide thresholds for recyclability claims, potentially barring “recyclable” labels, even where some recycling pathways may exist in practice. Together, these developments underscore continued uncertainty over how these criteria will be implemented, enforced, and applied to particular materials as these legal challenges continue to play out in court.

What This Means for Now

For now, absent a court order staying or invalidating the regulations, there is no immediate change to compliance obligations; however, the litigation adds another layer of complexity to an already evolving program and increases uncertainty around how key requirements adopted in CalRecycle’s regulations will be applied. Core definitions, such as what qualifies as “recycling,” and adopted exemption categories and procedures will be subject to legal scrutiny. How these issues are ultimately resolved could directly affect compliance strategies, reporting obligations, and program costs.

More broadly, these developments are a reminder that California’s recycling regulatory program, one of the most stringent in the country, continues to evolve. Companies should continue moving forward with compliance while remaining flexible as key issues are tested in court, recognizing that the outcome of these challenges could shape how the rules are interpreted and applied going forward.