Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Antonia Stamenova-Dancheva

On October 8, 2026, Plaintiffs in California League of Food Producers v. Bonta (S.D. Cal.) asked the Court for permission to file a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) in their legal challenge to SB 343, California’s Truth in Recycling law, to assert additional related claims that certain provisions of SB 54, California’s extended producer responsibility (EPR) law, violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. If allowed, the SAC will significantly expand the scope of the litigation. The amended complaint seeks equitable relief and names the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) and the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) as additional defendants.

Read more here.

Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Antonia Stamenova-Dancheva

On October 5, 2026, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) published two announcements in the Federal Register seeking public comments on two separate proposed standards for batteries.
 
The first is a request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve extension of the information collection requirements for the Safety Standard for Button Cell or Coin Batteries and Consumer Products Containing Such Batteries. OMB previously approved the collection of information, but that approval expires October 31, 2026. If approved by OMB, the extension would give stakeholders another chance to weigh in on the proposed safety standard until November 4, 2026.
 
The second announcement relates to the June 24, 2026, Notice of Public Rulemaking (NPR) seeking written comments on a proposed safety standard for lithium-ion batteries used in micromobility products such as e-bikes and e-scooters. The deadline for written comments on the NPR was August 24, 2026. CPSC now offers stakeholders an Opportunity for Oral Presentation of Comments regarding the proposed safety standard at a webinar to be held on October 21, 2026. The deadline to submit a request to make oral comments at the webinar is October 15, 2026.

Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Antonia Stamenova-Dancheva

On September 28, 2026, the Court in California League of Food Producers v. Bonta (S.D. Cal.) denied a motion to intervene in the suit (Motion) filed by two non-profit organizations, Earth Island Institute (EII) and Californians Against Waste (CAW) (September 28 Order). As we discussed here and here, the case was filed in the spring by a group of 21 food and other industry associations (Plaintiffs), challenging the constitutionality of SB 343, California’s “Truth in Recycling” law. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, barring enforcement of SB 343 during the pendency of the lawsuit on July 14, 2026. Less than two weeks after the issuance of the injunction, EII and CAW (Proposed Intervenors) asked the Court to let them join the case in defense of SB 343. Plaintiffs opposed the request.

Read more here.

Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Antonia Stamenova-Dancheva

Updated: Our analysis of the federal court decision upholding Oregon’s packaging EPR law has been updated to reflect two key developments: NAW’s appeal of that decision to the Ninth Circuit, and the extension of the filing deadline for the parties’ joint status report in the separate Lollicup v. Feldon litigation.

Read the full analysis here.

Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Antonia Stamenova-Dancheva

On September 20, 2026, California Governor Newsom signed California bill SB 501 into law, which modifies provisions of the state’s Responsible Battery Recycling Act (AB 2440 or the Act). AB 2440, enacted in 2022, establishes an extended producer responsibility (EPR) program administered by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), with the Department of Toxic Substances Control (Department). It lays out rules “for the collection, transportation, and recycling, and the safe and proper management, of covered batteries in California in an economically efficient and practical manner.” AB 2440 creates an extended producer responsibility program for certain types of covered loose batteries, expanding the universe of covered batteries while establishing key exemptions. SB 501 adds several definitions and creates new obligations for producers of batteries covered by AB 2440 that businesses should be aware of.

Read more here.

Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Antonia Stamenova-Dancheva

On September 23, 2026, the Court again postponed the previously scheduled Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) conference and related deadlines in the ongoing litigation involving a First Amendment challenge to SB 343, California’s “Truth in Recycling” law. The ENE conference is now scheduled for November 4, 2026.

As we discussed here and here, in California League of Food Producers v. Bonta (S.D. Cal.), a group of 21 food industry associations (Plaintiffs) challenged the constitutionality of SB 343. On July 14, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, barring enforcement of SB 343 during the pendency of the lawsuit. As we noted here, following the issuance of the injunction, two non-profit organizations, Earth Island Institute (EII) and Californians Against Waste (CAW), sought to intervene in the case in defense of SB 343. After the filing of the intervention motion, which Plaintiffs opposed, the Court set an ENE conference for September 24, 2026.

In a joint motion submitted in August, Plaintiffs and Defendant (the Parties) asked the Court to vacate the ENE conference and related deadlines, and reset those dates until after the Court issues a decision on the pending motion to intervene. On August 25, the Court denied the Parties’ request, but granted a month-long continuance and rescheduled the ENE conference for October 28. On September 22, the Parties once again asked the Court to reschedule the ENE conference, and the Court granted that request. Confidential ENE statements are due to the Court by October 26 to allow time to review before the November 4 conference.

Separately, as the motion to intervene is now fully briefed, a decision is expected in the coming weeks.

We will continue to monitor the case closely and report on any developments. 

Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Antonia Stamenova-Dancheva

On August 27, 2026, after a 5-day bench trial, U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon upheld in its entirety Oregon’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (RMA), the state’s Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) law, reversing an earlier preliminary injunction that captured stakeholder attention. This is the first federal court decision upholding a packaging EPR law against constitutional arguments and may have implications for other similar lawsuits challenging EPR and other laws on constitutional grounds, including the ongoing litigation in California concerning SB 343.

Read more here.

Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Antonia Stamenova-DanchevaPhoto of Anushka R. Stein

On July 14, 2026, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted a request for a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of SB 343, also known as California’s “Truth in Recycling” law. Restrictions on recyclability claims were set to take effect on October 4, 2026, for products or packaging manufactured after that date that do not meet the recyclability criteria set out under the law. The court ordered that “Defendant Rob Bonta, and all those in privity or acting in concert with Defendant Bonta, are hereby enjoined from enforcing SB 343 until further order of the Court.” The state’s enforcement of the law’s restrictions is now indefinitely delayed.

Read more here.

Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Antonia Stamenova-DanchevaPhoto of Anushka R. Stein

Following a sweep of enforcement actions and closing letters related to “Made in the USA” (MUSA) claims earlier this year, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC or the Commission) continues its focus on these claims with recent warning letters to seven companies. On July 6, 2026, the FTC announced that it had issued warning letters to companies that marketed their products as American-made. Like the FTC’s MUSA sweep in April, the recent warning letters are linked to the Administration’s March 13, 2026 Executive Order (EO), “Ensuring Truthful Advertising of Products Claiming to be Made in America,” which directed the Commission to prioritize enforcement of fraudulent MUSA claims “wherever appropriate.”

Read more here.

Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Antonia Stamenova-DanchevaPhoto of Anushka R. Stein

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States (the Court) struck down Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the nearly century-old precedent that restricted presidential authority to fire independent agency officers at will. The Court’s decision in Trump v. Slaughter, in which a former Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) challenged the president’s authority to fire her, means that cases involving Trump’s at-will firings at some other federal agencies are likely to come out in the president’s favor—including his firing of leadership at the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), among others. 

Read more here.