The George W. Bush appointee agreed four of the law\u2019s provisions are too vague to be enforceable. But even if these provisions were severed from the rest of the statute, Hayes concluded, the law would still be an unconstitutional restriction of commercial speech because California hasn\u2019t shown how it will promote the state\u2019s purported goals of improving recycling rates and reducing consumer confusion.<\/p>\n
For one thing, the judge noted in Tuesday\u2019s ruling, the heightened requirements for putting the \u201cchasing arrows\u201d recyclability symbol on packaging will prompt food producers and others to leave the symbol off recyclable plastic products, rather than risking a misdemeanor violation, making it more likely that these products end up in a landfill.<\/p>\n
While such arguments by food producers are self-serving, Hayes said, California has failed to produce evidence to refute them.<\/p>\n
\u201cMore importantly, defendant offers no evidence to support the speculative position that SB 343 will cause manufacturers to redesign their products and packaging in a way that complies with SB 343, as opposed to manufacturers simply omitting truthful statements regarding recyclability from their products and packaging,\u201d the judge wrote.<\/p>\n
The statute Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law in 2021 requires products to meet several benchmarks to be advertised or labeled as recyclable in order to help consumers clearly identify which products are recyclable in California.<\/p>\n