California’s long-awaited single-use plastic law is officially hitting the ground, but it’s already generating a massive amount of backlash from just about every corner of the industry and environmental circles. The final regulations putting the law into effect were released on May 1 and posted for review on Tuesday, and the response has been anything but quiet.
The core of the issue lies in how the state’s waste agency, CalRecycle, finalized the rules for Senate Bill 54, known as the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act. This legislation was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2022 and was widely seen as a landmark move to tackle the overwhelming amount of plastic waste clogging our waterways and oceans. The goal was simple: force producers to take responsibility for the packaging they put into the market and ensure that every piece of food packaging is recyclable or compostable by 2032.
However, environmental groups are now claiming that the new regulations actually undermine the very intent of the law. They argue that the Newsom administration and CalRecycle have introduced exemptions that favor the plastic industry, effectively creating loopholes that allow companies to skirt their responsibilities. Avinash Kar, who serves as the senior director of the toxics program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, didn’t mince words when describing the situation. “These new rules create huge loopholes for plastic packaging that violate the law,” he said.
One of the biggest concerns for activists is the inclusion of what they call chemical recycling
The original language of the law specifically forbids recycling methods that produce significant amounts of hazardous waste. Yet, the new regulations appear to open the door for these processes as long as the facilities are properly permitted. Activists argue that this is a dangerous move that could lead to even more hazardous waste production.
There’s also frustration regarding how exemptions are handled. According to Kar, the new rules allow companies to claim that certain products are already covered by federal law. If they make that claim, CalRecycle might not review it immediately, effectively granting an exemption for as long as the agency remains silent. Kar refers to this as a potential “forever loophole.”
Nick Lapis, the advocacy director for Californians Against Waste, expressed deep disappointment in the direction these regulations have taken. “Californians were promised a system where producers take real responsibility for the waste they create,” Lapis noted. “When regulations introduce broad exemptions and redefine key terms, that promise starts to erode. The details matter here, and right now they don’t line up with the intent of the law.”
On the other side of the fence, the packaging industry is equally unhappy, though for very different reasons. They are worried about the financial and legal burden of the new requirements. Matt Clarke, a spokesman for the National Assn. of Wholesaler-Distributors, pointed out that his organization has already sued Oregon over a similar waste law. “Our members have real concerns about cost, compliance, and constitutionality,” Clarke explained.
He also mentioned that the proposed fees in California are already higher than what other states have put forward, which makes the situation even more precarious for businesses. “We see a lot of the same problems in California that we flagged in Oregon,” he added. “Given California’s scale, the cost implications are going to be even larger.”
The potential for litigation is high. Jan Dell of the anti-plastic waste group Last Beach Cleanup believes the law won’t work regardless of the regulations. She pointed to a report from the Circular Action Alliance, which suggests the law could increase disposal costs for common products like Windex bottles by six to 14 times.
“If the producers don’t successfully sue to stop the fees, this will certainly add to product inflation for CA consumers,” she said. “Californians already have to pay exorbitantly high curbside collection fees for trash, recycling, and organics … so, starting in 2027, our groceries will cost a LOT more but we won’t see a reduction in our waste bills.”
Christopher “Smitty” Smith, a partner at the law firm Saul Ewing in Los Angeles, who advises companies on these regulations, noted that while the law could be sharper to avoid legal challenges, litigation is likely inevitable. Environmentalists are already preparing their own lawsuits.
Despite the legal friction, Smith noted that the law is already forcing companies to change how they operate. He mentioned one fast-food client that has spent the last year mapping out its supply chain and franchise agreements to understand its regulatory obligations. “They’ve spent the past year mapping out their franchise agreements, their supply chain agreements, their producer agreements, to figure out” what it needs to do to comply.
Published: May 15, 2026 05:00 pm