On
October 8, 2026, the trade groups suing over California’s SB 343 labeling law asked the federal court in San Diego for permission to file a second amended complaint in California League of Food Producers v. Bonta. The new complaint would challenge parts of SB 54 as unconstitutionally vague, including what counts as recyclable, the recycling-rate and source-reduction requirements, and the covered material categories. It would also challenge the SB 54 rule on how fees may be shown on receipts and invoices and the eco-modulated fees set by a private organization, and it would add CalRecycle Director Zoe Heller and CDTFA Director Trista Gonzalez as defendants. The plaintiffs noticed the motion for November 9, 2026, without oral argument unless the court asks for it, and the court set the early neutral evaluation and case management conference for November 4, 2026.
What this means for you: nothing changes yet. SB 54 registration, reporting, and fees continue, and the July 14 injunction covers SB 343 enforcement by the Attorney General, not SB 54. If the court allows the amendment, a second federal case, alongside Nebraska v. Heller, would test SB 54 itself ahead of the January 1, 2027 program start. The case schedule is on the
CLFP v. Bonta page. Source:
CLFP v. Bonta docket, ECF 35, motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (S.D. Cal., October 8, 2026).
Correction (October 11, 2026): the complaint names 18 plaintiffs, not 21, including six California commodity commissions (CLFP v. Bonta complaint caption and docket entries 1 and 7).
Correction (October 14, 2026): the October 11 correction was wrong, since the original complaint (ECF 1, March 17, 2026) named 18 plaintiffs and the First Amended Complaint (ECF 7, April 7, 2026) names 21, adding the California Retailers Association, Consumer Brands Association, and Personal Care Products Council (First Amended Complaint, caption and p. 2).