The attorney general's non-opposition does not decide the motion. The court has not yet ruled on leave to amend. Whether the amendment will be granted is still open.
The underlying SB 343 case began March 17, 2026, when 18 trade associations sued the attorney general, arguing the law unconstitutionally restricts truthful, non-misleading commercial speech and that its recyclability criteria are too ambiguous to enforce. On July 14, Judge William Q. Hayes granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of SB 343 "until further order of the Court." The law had been set to take effect October 4, 2026.
This matters because the fight may move from product labeling to the EPR fee framework, which carries far larger industry costs. SB 54 borrows SB 343's recyclability criteria, so the injunction raises a practical question: what will count as recyclable when California's per-category fees begin in 2027? Counsel advising clients on SB 54 compliance should watch the December 15 status conference and any ruling on leave to amend. If the court allows the amendment, SB 54 exposure becomes a live issue in this case. The attorney general's filing is being read by industry and consumer trackers as a sign the state will not resist the expanded claims at this stage, but that reading rests on a non-opposition, not a merits position.