If your head is spinning trying to figure out how to comply with California's SB 54 (EPR reporting due May 31, 2026) and SB 343 (effective October 4, 2026), you're not alone. Nobody has all the answers. At rePurpose, staying ahead of evolving regulations is core to what we do, and our goal is to bring as much clarity as possible to the complexity.

In our unPacked: Truth in Recycling - SB 343 webinar, we asked attendees how they're planning to handle California's Truth in Recycling Law (SB 343). The responses said it all:

• 31% said they're assessing their packaging and exploring alternative label options.
• 31% are planning to remove the chasing arrows symbol from their packaging altogether.
• 25% are still in the early stages of learning what these laws even require. 

And the confusion is understandable. SB 54 and SB 343 are two connected but divergent laws, each fueled by different data, governed by different timelines, and enforced by different authorities. 

Together, they're pushing producers toward a 2032 goal of 100% recyclable or compostable packaging, but the path to get there is anything but clear. The lists that are supposed to help companies determine recyclability don't map neatly onto each other. The labeling rules that apply in California can directly conflict with RIC labeling requirements in 30+ other states. And the global picture adds another layer of complexity for brands selling across borders.

What does enforcement actually look like? What does "recyclable" legally mean under each law? Can you just remove the chasing arrows? Should you? These are the questions producers are wrestling with right now. 

To work through them, our compliance experts at rePurpose were joined by Joseph Dages, a partner and attorney at Steptoe, for a fireside chat on the most pressing questions facing producers today. We can't promise tidy answers — but we can promise an honest look at what we know, what's still uncertain, and how to think through your options.

We're sharing the Q&A here so attendees can reference it — and in case other producers have the same questions. Please note that the answers below are for general reference only and do not constitute legal advice. Consult your own legal counsel to determine the recycling claims and product scope applicable to your business.

Triangle Definitions

• Are the solid triangle RICs now required on LDPE polybags and other soft plastic packaging?
  No, RIC codes are not mandatory on flexible packaging. However, if you do display the codes and they are not recyclable per California criteria, the RIC codes would need to be enclosed in a solid equilateral triangle or removed altogether.

• Is packaging exempt if covered under CA CRV?
  Yes. Packaging that is part of CRV or other California Stewardship programs will not be regulated under the SB 343 law and will be subject to the respective stewardship laws.

• The legislation calls out plastic containers as 8oz and above. Does that mean the RIC can be removed on any bottle smaller than 8oz?
  If RICs are not mandatory for your packaging format in question, our understanding is that those can be removed. If the container is retained (or required by law) and is not recyclable, then the RIC code needs to be enclosed in a solid equilateral triangle. If the packaging is recyclable, the RIC code enclosed in chasing arrows can remain as is.
  

• Are we liable for recycling Möbius loops engraved on packaging that we source from suppliers?
  Typically, the liable producer is the brand on the product. Sometimes, the retailer can be sued/liable as well. Normally, the supplier/mold manufacturer/plastic converter wouldn’t be sued (and are typically unknown or difficult to trace) since they’re not the ones putting out packaging in California. 
  

• What about a solid triangle to reference the material?
  Solid equilateral triangles to enclose RIC codes would be permitted under SB 343.

• I’ve noticed a slash through the triangle symbol on some products. Does this have something to do with SB 343 compliance?
  A 45-degree slash across a chasing arrow to denote non-recyclability would be permissible under the law. However, the H2R program that typically administered these labels has undergone a label refresh to align more accurately with the intent of the law.

Product Scope

Disclaimer: rePurpose recommends consulting qualified legal counsel to determine your specific recyclability claims. These responses do not constitute legal advice.

• Under CA SB 343, if a jar and lid are recyclable but a small scoop inside the jar is not, can the jar and lid still use the chasing arrows symbol while the scoop uses the solid triangle? Or must all components use the solid triangle to avoid misleading consumers?
  Solid equilateral triangles are only in relation to the RIC code. If some components of your package are recyclable and some removable components are not, and you wish to communicate recyclability, specific disposal instructions about all components should be indicated on the package. This could be on each individual component or on the outer package, where the instructions for all individual components are cited.

• Are cartons also included in SB343?
  While the status has evolved, moving in and out of the collection and sortation infrastructure lists, the most recent data states that cartons are not recyclable in California. As an FYI, the Carton Council is working hard to provide additional data to the authorities.
  

• In addition to 1 PET and 2 HDPE rigid single-use items, does any other Chasing Arrow item meet California's 60% recyclability?
  One would have to verify the MCS data to determine this. Reach out to our team so we can help understand your specific questions.
  

• Can you expand on collection coverage regarding products, such as industrial stamped steel light fixtures?
  If recyclability is claimed on such a product and is not governed by other CA Stewardship laws, one will have to find the corresponding MCS category that refers to your products as a starting point. We recommend looking at the published study for additional input.

• Is there a table that just lists what is considered recyclable?
  There are data tables within the MCS study, but one would need to analyse those. Reach out to our team for a consultation.

• If a bottle/label coverage is 55% or greater, does that render the bottle not recyclable unless NIR testing is done? Does that mean the RIC would need to be a solid triangle?
  The packaging for plastics must be compliant with APR design guides. If the label coverage is within APR surface area ranges, depending on the volume, and the rest of the packaging is recyclable with no features flagged red by APR, then the package will be recyclable. (Please note that we do not know the specifics of your packaging to provide a definitive answer.)
  

‍

Enforcement and Effective Date

• Can you explain the 10/4 enforcement date? Does it refer to finished goods or the component manufacturing date?
  If you already have goods in supply and are liquidating inventory, those should be in the clear. But if you have goods manufactured after 10/4, these must be in compliance. Practically, you should have defensible information on manufacturing dates. Maintain evidence that shows which goods were manufactured before the 10/4 deadline.

• How will California enforce the law after Oct 4th?
  The Attorney General’s office and local jurisdictions can enforce the law (not CalRecycle). It is our understanding that private plaintiffs’ lawyers may also initiate action.

How2Recycle

• If we have obtained our recycling symbols for our products through the How2Recycle organization, is there any guarantee that we're compliant? Do their new labels meet SB 343 requirements?
  While we can’t speak directly for the H2R program, we know that their label upgrades were designed to be in compliance with the state laws such as SB 343. Please reach out to the H2R team for more information on their labelling system. However, it is always recommended to do your own due diligence to ensure packaging and labels are compliant, as ultimately brands are responsible for what goes on your pack.

• Is it a strong recommendation to use H2R?
  It is recommended to check the state criteria first and then work with a partner like H2R for the correct claim verbiage. H2R typically aims to comply with state laws.

• If a label does not say “recycle” or use chasing arrows, would it be acceptable with SB 343? For example, using the H2R store drop-off?
  Yes, the updated store drop-off labels from H2R are compliant with SB 343.
  
  

Conflicting State Regulations

• How are companies who don't create unique SKUs specific to California or other states supposed to comply when other states, such as Michigan’s MCL 321.16102, require plastic resin within a triangle of arrows? These regulations contradict other states’ laws.
  Yes, there is absolutely a conflict of law that is brewing. In CA, you won’t be permitted to use those chasing arrow triangles with a RIC inside unless it complies with SB 343 criteria. But that could be in conflict with other states requiring chasing arrows with RIC codes. Practically speaking, this is the conflicting position that companies may find themselves in.

• How do we balance international recycling symbol regulations with SB 343? Or China’s RoGS symbol, which is a circular chasing arrow symbol that is legally required on our products?
  While we don’t have direct context about how enforcement agencies may perceive international mandatory symbols, our cautious advice would be to remove those symbols on packaging supplied into California if they do not meet the state criteria for recyclability. If they do meet the criteria, those symbols can be left on as is.

• Our product is sold in the same packaging in California as well as Mexico. There is no H2R label on the packaging, but has an appropriate “Recicla” label with chasing arrows. It also has a clear geographical qualifier. Could this label be considered misleading and therefore non-compliant under SB 343?
  We are not sure how international labelling might be perceived by authorities. It would be best to consult with a lawyer and also reach out to CalRecycle for any advice on international labelling if the package is not recyclable in California. The safest bet would be to ensure California specific packaging does not indicate any recyclability if it does not meet state criteria.
  
  
• If SB 343 gets scrapped,  will SB 54 go down as a result?
  No, we do not believe so. They are separate laws. It's possible that the criteria in SB 54 for recyclability may be revised, but we can’t predict at this moment.
  

• Is there any activity at the federal level to help with all the state-to-state activity?
  Yes, the PACK Act (Packaging and Claims Knowledge Act) is a bill aiming to harmonize recyclability labelling at the federal level. The Act creates a federal framework under the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for making recyclable, compostable, and reusable claims on consumer packaging. However, this bill has not passed yet. If it does, it could pre-empt state laws like SB 343.
  

Removing the Chasing Arrows Symbol

• Our initial plan is to remove the chasing arrows symbol from any printed labeling, but a lot of our plastic packaging has the chasing arrows triangle and RIC molded into the bottoms. I'm feeling nervous about whether SB 343 means we need to source new packaging or if we need to document how recyclable our packaging actually is.
  This is a pertinent concern. It would be best to write to CalRecycle for advice on how to approach the engraved RIC from suppliers if the package is not recyclable. Many suppliers have switched to the solid equilateral triangle.

• Are we in the clear if we don't make recyclability-related claims on our packaging?
  Yes, you are in the clear under SB 343.
  

• Do we anticipate that SB 343 would make markings mandatory? Right now, it is safe to remove the symbols, but will they become mandatory?
  Removing labels is an option. This law is not a mandatory labelling requirement. However, note that the SB 54 (EPR) regulation requires all packaging to be recyclable (not labelled) by 2032, and the criteria for recyclability does point to SB 343.
  From a labelling standpoint, there is no indication of mandatory labelling at this moment. We cannot speak to the future, but it’s important to keep an eye out on the evolving regulations.

• Can companies add a label on the packaging indicating ‘not recyclable in California’?
  It is best to consult with a lawyer on the specifics of the verbiage.

As indicated by these Q&As, SB 343 is still taking shape. In the meantime, producers should scrutinize their packaging formats, aim to achieve 100% recyclable / compostable packaging by 2032 (SB 54), remove any misleading recyclability claims from packaging ahead of October 4th (SB 343), document their reasoning carefully, and stay close to the evolving guidance.

If you’d like to learn more about how rePurpose can help you comply with SB 54 or better understand SB 343, book time with our team to speak with a compliance expert.