California's New Packaging Claims Rules: What SB 343 and AB 660 Mean for Your Labels

California packaging labeling law in 2026 covers two separate statutes governing what brands can print on pack: SB 343 (Truth in Recycling), which restricts recyclability claims and symbols, and AB 660, which standardizes food date labels. AB 660 has been in effect since July 1, 2026. SB 343's enforcement is currently paused by a federal court injunction pending appeal, though its October 4, 2026 compliance date remains on the books.

Two Different Laws, One Compliance Season

Two California statutes are landing on packaging teams’ desks at the same time, and they get conflated constantly because they share a state and a general subject. SB 343 governs recyclability claims: the chasing arrows symbol, the word “recyclable,” any icon implying a material can be recycled. AB 660 governs food date labels: what a “sell by” date can say, and whether it can appear on consumer-facing packaging at all.

They don’t share an enforcement agency, a legal basis, or, as of this month, even a comparable status. AB 660 is settled law, in force since July 1. SB 343 is enacted law with its enforcement mechanism currently blocked by a federal court. A third layer, PFAS restrictions on packaging materials, adds a further compliance dimension that predates both.

SB 343 (Truth in Recycling): Enacted, Enforcement Paused

SB 343 was signed in 2021 and was set to restrict recyclability claims starting October 4, 2026, the date determined by the 18-month window following CalRecycle’s Material Characterization Study, published April 2025. Under the law, a “recyclable” claim or a chasing arrows symbol is only permitted if the material is collected by programs serving at least 60% of California’s population and sorted into defined streams by facilities serving a similar threshold.

On July 14, 2026, a federal judge in the Southern District of California granted a preliminary injunction blocking the state Attorney General from enforcing SB 343. The plaintiffs, a coalition of more than twenty trade associations including the Flexible Packaging Association and the American Forest & Paper Association, argued the law’s restrictions on recyclability claims are unconstitutionally vague and violate First Amendment protections for commercial speech. The court found the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits.

That doesn’t mean SB 343 is gone. The injunction is preliminary, not a final ruling, and California is expected to appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The October 4, 2026 date remains written into law; it simply isn’t currently enforceable by the Attorney General. Brands that stop preparing because of one court order risk scrambling if the injunction is narrowed or reversed on appeal, a live possibility given how early the case still is.

AB 660 (Date Labeling): Already Live

AB 660 took effect July 1, 2026, and unlike SB 343, it hasn’t been challenged in court. The law requires packaged food products to carry either a “quality date” or a “safety date” in a standardized format, and it prohibits the ambiguous “sell by” phrasing that has confused consumers and contributed to unnecessary food waste for years. A narrow exception allows coded “sell by” dates used purely for internal inventory management, provided they’re not consumer-facing.

Violations carry misdemeanor fines up to $1,000 per instance, plus licensing exposure and the usual consumer-protection litigation risk under California’s unfair competition and false advertising statutes. Because this law is already in force, it’s the more immediately actionable of the two for any brand shipping packaged food into California.

Where Non-Compliant Practices Create Risk

Packfora’s compliance framework maps the practices most likely to trigger exposure under both laws, and what each requires instead. Four of the five rows connect to SB 343, so read them as the standard to build toward even while enforcement is paused, not as an active mandate. The date-labeling row connects to AB 660, which is already active.

Regulatory status verified against court filings and state agency sources as of August 2026. The source infographic listed SB 343 as effective October 4, 2026 without noting the enforcement pause; see Schema Notes.

PFAS Restrictions Layer On Top

PFAS restrictions add a third compliance layer that predates both packaging-claims laws. AB 1200 has banned intentionally added PFAS in food packaging since January 1, 2023, a settled requirement, not a 2026 development. AB 347, signed in 2024, adds enforcement teeth: manufacturers of covered products must register with the Department of Toxic Substances Control by July 1, 2029, with DTSC enforcement beginning July 1, 2030. A separate bill that would have expanded PFAS restrictions to cookware and cleaning products, SB 682, was vetoed by the Governor in October 2025, so that expansion didn’t happen.

For packaging teams, the practical link to SB 343 is direct: PFAS-treated materials generally can’t meet SB 343’s recyclability criteria at all, regardless of where the injunction lands.

What This Means for Multi-State Brands

This is the fifth and final post in Packfora’s EPR compliance series, and the pattern from the other four states holds here too: California moves first, and other states often follow its lead on packaging claims the same way they’ve followed its lead on extended producer responsibility. See the state-by-state EPR overview for how the other seven EPR states compare, and EPR fundamentals for the registration and PRO mechanics that run alongside these labeling requirements.

The practical takeaway for brands selling nationally: a label-claim validation process built for California’s standard, the strictest and most litigated in the country, transfers cleanly to less demanding markets. Building it the other way around rarely works.

Building California-Ready Packaging Claims

• 1. Recyclability audits aligned with CalRecycle's material recovery and processing data, so claims are defensible whether or not the injunction holds.
• 2. Label and messaging review against state-specific definitions of recyclability, paired with material consulting to eliminate banned substances.
• 3. Packaging copy and supply chain alignment for compliant food date labeling under AB 660, the one requirement here that's active today.
• 4. Design and specification validation with compliance documentation to support claim integrity, backed by label and claim validation built into the specification workflow itself, not bolted on after the fact.

Packfora’s California packaging compliance consulting practice runs this as a standing process, not a one-time audit, which matters given how fast this specific legal picture is still moving.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is SB 343 still in effect in California?

SB 343 remains enacted law, but a federal court blocked its enforcement on July 14, 2026, pending appeal. The October 4, 2026 compliance date is written into the statute and could become enforceable again if the injunction is narrowed or reversed, so brands should keep preparing rather than treat the law as cancelled.

What's the difference between SB 343 and AB 660?

SB 343 (Truth in Recycling) restricts recyclability claims and symbols on packaging. AB 660 is a separate, unrelated law that standardizes food date labels and bans consumer-facing “sell by” dates. They share a state and a general subject, packaging claims, but different legal bases, different enforcement agencies, and different timelines.

What happened to the October 4, 2026 SB 343 deadline?

On July 14, 2026, a federal judge in the Southern District of California granted a preliminary injunction blocking the state Attorney General from enforcing SB 343, finding that a coalition of trade associations was likely to succeed in its First Amendment challenge. The ruling is preliminary; California is expected to appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and the underlying case continues.

Does AB 660 apply to all packaged food products?

AB 660 applies broadly to packaged food products sold in California, requiring standardized “quality date” or “safety date” labeling and prohibiting consumer-facing “sell by” dates. It doesn't apply to food prepared for immediate consumption, such as restaurant meals, and it allows coded dates used solely for internal inventory management.

References

Morgan Lewis, federal court order blocking SB 343 enforcement, July 2026.

Resource Recycling, reporting on the July 14, 2026 preliminary injunction.

Reed Smith, legal alert on AB 660's effective date and penalty structure.

Selling into California means building packaging claims that can survive the state’s strictest scrutiny, whether or not SB 343’s enforcement pause holds. Packfora’s California packaging compliance consulting practice runs recyclability audits, label reviews, and claim and specification validation so your packaging claims hold up regardless of which way the litigation goes.