Packaging Groups Expand Lawsuit, Say SB 54 Violates Free Speech

Packaging industry groups challenging California's labeling law want to expand their lawsuit to cover SB 54, and they argue the statute violates free speech protections.

The American Forest & Paper Association, the Flexible Packaging Association and other plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in their ongoing challenge to California's labeling rules. The filing seeks to broaden the scope of the case beyond the original target of the litigation.

"The ambiguities and constitutional infirmities that plague SB 343 have now infected another statute," the amended complaint states.

What does the amended complaint change?

The plaintiffs originally sued over SB 343, California's law governing environmental marketing claims and labeling. The amended complaint now brings SB 54 into the same legal challenge. SB 54 is California's sweeping packaging and plastic pollution statute.

By folding the two statutes into one case, the packaging groups are asking the court to treat the alleged defects in the labeling rules as a pattern. Their core argument is constitutional: they contend the state is compelling speech and restricting how companies communicate about their products, in violation of free speech protections.

The named plaintiffs include:

• The American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA)
• The Flexible Packaging Association (FPA)
• Other packaging industry groups involved in the ongoing challenge

Why does this matter for marketers?

The dispute centers on what companies can and cannot say on packaging sold in California. If the courts side with the industry groups, the ruling could limit the state's authority to dictate labeling language and environmental claims.

If the state prevails, brands selling into California would continue to operate under the labeling requirements the plaintiffs describe as ambiguous. Either outcome would carry compliance implications for packaging design, sustainability claims and marketing copy well beyond the packaging industry itself, because California's rules effectively set a de facto standard for national packaging.

What happens next?

The case now moves forward on the amended complaint. The packaging groups will press their claim that both SB 343 and SB 54 suffer from the same constitutional weaknesses, while California will defend its authority to regulate labeling within its borders.

The court's response to the amended complaint will determine whether the expanded challenge proceeds to a full hearing on the merits — and with it, whether California's packaging and labeling regime faces a serious legal test on free speech grounds.