Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Antonia Stamenova-Dancheva

On October 23, 2026, the Court vacated its order to hold an Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) conference in the ongoing litigation involving a First Amendment challenge to SB 343, California’s “Truth in Recycling” law. California League of Food Producers v. Bonta (S.D. Cal.). The ENE conference, first scheduled for September 24, was postponed several times and, as we discussed here, was re-scheduled for November 4, 2026. Now, the Magistrate Judge assigned to preside over the ENE conference has taken it off calendar, setting an “attorney-only status conference” for December 15, 2026 in its place.

Read more here.

Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Antonia Stamenova-Dancheva

On October 16, 2026, the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) filed a Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon seeking to restore its members’ preliminary injunction (PI) against enforcement of Oregon’s Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act (RMA) while NAW’s appeal in NAW v. Feldon is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Read more here.

Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Antonia Stamenova-Dancheva

On September 17, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission) announced that FleetCor Technologies (FleetCor) and CEO Ronald Clarke (Clarke) agreed to pay $100 million to settle allegations that the company charged its customers hidden fees while falsely promising to save them money. The settlement is the conclusion of a case that was first filed by the Commission in federal court in 2019, alleging five counts of violations of Section 5 of the FTC Act concerning FleetCor’s marketing and fee practices.

FleetCor (now known as Corpay, Inc.) marketed fuel cards – charge cards that customers can distribute to vehicle drivers to purchase fuel and transportation-related products and services. According to the FTC’s complaint, FleetCor advertised its fuel cards to businesses by claiming that customers would save money; that the cards provide fraud controls that protect customers from unauthorized transactions; and that the cards have no set-up, transaction, or membership fees, including when used to purchase fuel.

Customers’ experiences, however, were quite the opposite, according to the Commission. Tens of thousands of complaints were lodged with the company, government agencies, and the Better Business Bureau (BBB) concerning FleetCor’s fee practices and allegedly dishonest marketing. The FTC’s complaint claims that FleetCor charged customers hundreds of millions of dollars in undisclosed fees, including fees for programs customers never ordered, and imposed late fees on customers who had either paid on time or were prevented by FleetCor from doing so. According to the FTC, FleetCor’s ads for the fuel cards deceptively claimed the cards would provide specific per-gallon savings, despite the FTC’s contention that Clarke knew that customers typically don’t achieve such savings; misrepresented the cards’ protection from unauthorized purchases; and claimed that customers could use the cards at “tens of thousands of locations nationwide,” without incurring a transaction fee, which was not always the case.

The FTC also alleges that Clarke was not only aware of, but was instrumental in, the company’s deceptive practices. The complaint states that the company’s own internal communications show that Clarke was “actively involved in efforts to create fees, knew how and when the company was charging them, and that the company re-enrolled customers in certain fees after those customers asked FleetCor to remove the fees from their statements.” While directing employees to fix criticism aimed at the company, such as its BBB rating, the FTC contended that Clarke failed to remedy FleetCor’s practices.

Under the terms of the settlement, payment must be made within 8 days of the effective date of the Settlement Order, and FleetCor must provide sufficient customer information to enable the Commission to efficiently administer consumer redress.

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.