https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-...
Edit: the original stated purpose, according to the linked wikipedia page, was: facilitate recycling...
And if it actually will be recycled depends not only on the facility but also on the cost of doing what needs to be done (for separation and transport), and the possibility of what can be done (laminates). However these constraints are not communicated clearly.
I'm 52 years old, I live in Germany, where we "recycle" for ages, about 30 years now, and we tell our kids and grannies and everybody in between to separate the trash because "recycling", and we see benches and other sturdy plastics items "made from trash" and still, only 17% of the collected packaging trash is reliably recycled, while the recycling of other plastics (toys, vehicle parts, any plastics that are not packaging) is also intransparent.
https://bmbf-plastik.de/en/publication/plastic-atlas-2019-fa...
https://www.tagesschau.de/faktenfinder/kurzerklaert/kurzerkl...
Unlikely. It's more likely that they don't know, because they didn't look too hard.
The reason it's not recyclable has nothing to do with that, though. It's not recyclable because plastic recycling is very difficult, many plastics can't be recycled, and of those that can, any contaminants will ruin an entire batch. Food is an example of such a contaminant.
Perhaps the law should require proper labelling of packaging material that is in contact with food just like it requires food ingredients to be listed. If manufacturers were to lobby hard against such a rule, what might we conclude from that?