Plastics Litigation Tracker

Allegations: Plaintiff, Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California, filed a lawsuit against Defendant Exxon Mobil Corp., alleging that Defendant engaged in a decades-long deception campaign that caused and exacerbated the global plastics pollution crisis. AG Bonta argues that Defendant made misleading public statements and marketing campaigns originally promising that mechanical recycling, and now, that chemical recycling, are solutions to the plastic waste and pollution crisis. AG Bonta explains that Exxon Mobil's deceptions are causing foreseeable harm to California's natural resources, economy, and recreation, and are resulting in environmental injustices. The complaint raises the following causes of action: (1) public nuisance; (2) violation of Government Code § 12607 (an action for equitable relief for pollution, impairment, and destruction of natural resources); (3) water pollution (in violation of CA Fish and Game Code §§ 5650 and 5650.1); (4) untrue or misleading advertising (in violation of CA Business and Professions Code § 17500); (5) misleading environmental marketing (in violation of CA Business and Professionals Code § 17580.5); and (6) unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices (in violation of CA Business and Professionals Code § 17200). AG Bonta asks the court to compel Defendant to abate the ongoing public nuisance by establishing and contributing to an abatement fund; grant a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendant to cease and desist any and all deceptive public statements related to its plastic operations (including but not limited to use of the following terms when referring to its operations and products: "advanced recycling," chemical recycling," "circular," "certified circular polymers," and "recyclable"); grant all temporary and permanent equitable relief required to prevent further pollution; and grant any further relief the court deems just and proper. Filed on 9/23/2024. See the complaint here.

Status: Pending. On November 1, the case was removed from the San Francisco Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On November 12, the court issued an order finding that this case is related to Sierra Club, Inc. et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation et al., No. 3:24-cv-07288. The court assigned both cases to Chief United States District Judge Richard Seeborg. On December 9, AG Bonta filed a motion to remand the case back to the Superior Court, which the District Court granted on February 24, 2025. On March 11, Defendant filed an appeal in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Case Number 25-1674), seeking review of the District Court's decision to grant Plaintiff's motion to remand. On March 28, the case was administratively stayed until April 14, pending the appeal of the remand order.

Allegations: Plaintiffs, a class of consumers, filed a lawsuit against Defendant, Phillips North America LLC, a company that manufactures, distributes, and sells plastic baby bottles. Plaintiffs are California residents who seek to represent a class covering purchases of the bottles in California and a class covering purchases of the bottles nationwide. Plaintiffs argued that Defendant failed to warn consumers that the bottles leached dangerous microplastics when the bottles are heated, and that Defendant knew the bottles would be heated in their regular use. Plaintiffs also argued that by advertising the bottles as not containing Bisphenol A (i.e., being "BPA free"), Defendant misled customers and created a false sense of security, because although the bottles do not leach BPA, they leach microplastics, which cause health issues in children, including damaging children's digestive tracts, immune systems, and reproductive systems. On behalf of the California class, Plaintiffs asserted violations of California's Unfair Competition Law (CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17200, ET SEQ.); California's False Advertising Law (CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17500); and California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 1750, ET SEQ.). On behalf of both the California and nationwide classes, Plaintiffs asserted claims of breach of warranty and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs seek class certification; declaratory relief; an injunction barring the company's marketing of the bottles as safe; an injunction barring the sale of the bottles; damages, restitution, and disgorgement; punitive damages; attorneys' fees; and all relief the court deems just and proper. Filed on 06/25/2024. See the complaint here.

Status: Pending. On October 1, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. On October 31, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's first amended complaint. A virtual hearing on the motion to dismiss occurred on January 14, 2025. On February 20, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss, and established March 13 as the deadline for Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint. On March 13, Plaintiff filed its second amended complaint. Defendant filed an answer on March 27, where it challenged Plaintiff's claims, raised affirmative defenses, and asked the court to dismiss Plaintiff's second amended complaint with prejudice.

Allegations: Plaintiffs, a coalition of California nonprofit organizations (Sierra Club, Surfrider Foundation, Heal the Bay, and Baykeeper), filed a lawsuit against Defendant Exxon Mobil Corp., alleging that Defendant knowingly misrepresented the technical and economic feasibility of single-use plastics disposal, despite knowing for decades that single-use plastics cannot be safely disposed of. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant knew that single-use plastics would be a serious factor causing the current plastics crisis, resulting in injuries to the California public and Plaintiffs. The complaint raises two causes of action. First, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant created and contributed to a private and public nuisance in violation of CA Civil Code §§ 3479-3480, arguing that plastic pollution is injurious to human and marine health; offensive to the visual, physical, olfactory, and other senses; and interferes with the use and enjoyment of California's waterways and coasts, soil, and air. Second, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant's unlawful and unfair business practices violated California's Unfair Competition Law (CA Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq.). Plaintiffs explain that Plaintiffs and the California public cannot safely dispose of Defendant's single-use plastics because these products are combined with harmful additives and inherently cannot bio- or photo-degrade, resulting in single-use plastics polluting California's ocean, waterways, and other natural resources, and harming plant, animal, and human life and health. Plaintiffs argue that they have incurred costs in furtherance of their bona fide pre-existing missions to protect California's ocean, waterways, and other natural resources from the injuries caused by single-use plastic production. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs of the proceedings, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, and all other relief deemed just and proper. Filed on 9/23/2024. See the complaint here.

Status: Pending. On October 18, Defendant filed a notice of removal, and the case was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On November 12, the court issued an order finding that this case is related to The People of the State of California v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, No. 3:24-cv-07594. The court assigned both cases to Chief United States District Judge Richard Seeborg. On December 9, Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case back to the state Superior Court, which the District Court denied on February 24, 2025. On March 27, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. The court ordered responses be filed by May 1 and replies be filed by May 22. A motion hearing is scheduled to occur on June 5.

Allegations: Plaintiff, a consumer who purchased “Fiji” bottled water, alleges individually and on behalf of all other members of the public similarly situated, that Defendant, The Wonderful Company, LLC, a company that advertises, markets, sells, and distributes bottled water under the brand name “Fiji,” violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. Plaintiff argued that Defendant made false and misleading claims when it marketed its product as “Natural Artisan Water,” when the water contains microplastics. Plaintiff argued that Defendant’s deceptive practices deprived Plaintiff of their legally protected interest to obtain accurate information about the product they are consuming. Filed on 2/14/2024. See the complaint here.

Status: Pending. On February 14, 2024, Defendant filed a notice of removal, and the case was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On March 22, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. On April 26, Plaintiff responded to the motion to dismiss. On May 10, Defendant filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss. A virtual hearing took place on May 20. On July 31, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. On August 28, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint for failure to state a claim. On November 19, the parties met virtually for a status hearing. The court stated that it was evaluating Defendant's motion to dismiss, and scheduled a virtual follow-up status conference for December 17. On December 17, the court stated that it had taken Defendant's motion to dismiss under advisement, and scheduled a follow-up status conference for February 4, 2025. On February 1, 2025, the court rescheduled the follow-up status conference to February 25, 2025, and on February 24, rescheduled the conference for March 4. On March 3, the court issued an order dismissing Plaintiff's first amended complaint without prejudice, instructing Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint by March 18 if it so choses, and rescheduling the conference for March 25. On March 18, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On March 25, the court ordered Defendant to file its response to Plaintiff's second amended complaint by April 4, and scheduled a hearing for April 9, explaining that it will issue a decision on Defendant's motion at the hearing.

Allegations: Plaintiffs, an environmental group, filed an action against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and multiple U.S. Army Corps employees. Defendants had authorized commercial aquaculture operations in tidelands throughout Washington, including Puget Sound and Willapa Bay, under the 2021 issuance of Nationwide Permit 48 (2021 NWP 48) and through Letters of Permission (LOPs) under the Rivers and Harbors Act. Plaintiffs argued that the permits must be invalidated and that Defendants' actions violated the Clean Water Act (CWA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), because the approved practice could result in a complex variety of plastics (ranging from large plastic fishing gear, to microplastics, and more) being introduced into the waterways (among other, non plastics-related claims). Filed 12/20/21. See the complaint here.

Status: Pending. On April 26, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint, followed by a second amended complaint, on June 10. On July 25, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's second amended complaint's fifth claim, which had sought to vacate and enjoin en masse the use of LOPs to authorize aquaculture activities in Washington. Defendants argued that Plaintiffs had failed to state a claim under the APA because the statute only allowed for challenges to specific final agency actions, rather than broad programmatic challenges. Defendants also argued that Plaintiffs' claim should be dismissed because the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. On February 13, 2023, the court granted Defendants' motion and dismissed Plaintiff's fifth claim without prejudice. On June 28, Defendants filed an unopposed motion for voluntary remand. There, Defendants stated that they intended to propose revoking the applicability of the 2021 NWP 48 in Washington State, and accordingly, were also seeking the associated dismissal of Plaintiffs' remaining claims (all concerning 2021 NWP 48) without prejudice. Defendants also noted that Plaintiffs had informed them that Plaintiffs intended to move to further amend their complaint to add a new claim regarding the LOPs. On October 5, the court granted Defendants' motion. On October 24, Plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint, where they argued that activities performed under the LOPs issued by Defendants have "significant individual or cumulative impacts on the environmental values," but do not discuss plastic pollution. 2021 NWP 48 will not expire until March 14, 2026, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has not yet revoked the applicability of this NWP in Washington. Plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint on February 1. On September 25, 2024, the court ordered the parties to file a status report by November 1. On November 1, the parties filed a joint status report. On November 4, the court issued an order setting a case management schedule. On March 24, 2025, the court issued the following briefing schedule: Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is due 6/16/2025; Defendants' combined cross-motion for summary judgment and response in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is due 8/14/2025; Intervenor-Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment and response in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is due 9/11/2025; Plaintiffs' combined reply in support of their motion for summary judgment and opposition to Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors' motions for summary judgment is due 10/27/2025; Defendants' reply in support of their summary judgment motion is due 12/8/2025; and Intervenor-Defendants' reply in support of their summary judgment motion is due 12/22/2025.

Allegations: Plaintiffs, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland, brought a case against PepsiCo, Coca Cola, Frito Lay, and plastic manufacturing companies, for their roles in creating a plastic pollution crisis in Baltimore. In their complaint, Plaintiffs argued that plastic litter from Defendants has created a public nuisance in the city, which harms human and environmental health and is costly for the city to clean up. Plaintiffs also argued that Defendants made misleading statements concerning the recyclability of their products, engaged in deceptive practices, failed to warn consumers about the health and environmental impacts of their products, committed a continuing trespass by polluting the City's lands and waters, are strictly liable for design defects, and negligently designed defective and unreasonably dangerous products. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, equitable relief, criminal penalties, punitive damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of products, Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, and any other relief as the court may deem proper. Filed on 06/20/2024. See the complaint here.

Status: Pending. Defendants have filed joint and separate motions to dismiss. A status hearing is scheduled to take place on January 15, 2025, with Plaintiffs' oppositions to the motions to dismiss to follow. On January 27, Plaintiff filed memorandums of law in opposition to the joint and separate motions to dismiss. On March 19, Plaintiffs file a notice of partial voluntary dismissal. A hearing is scheduled for May 1.

Allegations: Plaintiffs, a class of consumers from various states, filed a lawsuit against Defendants Exxon Mobil and 10 other energy and petrochemical companies, alleging that Defendants violated antitrust and consumer protection laws when they lied about the recyclability of single-use plastic products, thereby artificially increasing demand for single-use plastics and contributing to the plastic pollution crisis. Plaintiffs raised violations of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2); violations of state consumer protection laws in Arkansas, California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Vermont; violations of state antitrust laws in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin; and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs requested a jury trial, an injunction, compensatory and treble damages, attorneys' fees, and all other just and proper relief. Filed on 12/16/2024. See the complaint here.

Status: Pending. On January 3, 2025, Defendants filed a motion for an extension of time to file an answer to Plaintiffs' complaint. On January 6, the court granted Defendants' motion, extending their time to file an answer to February 10. On January 17, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint, which added the Board of County Commissioners for Ford County, Kansas, as additional Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' first amended complaint also added a public nuisance claim, arguing that Defendants "created, exacerbated, and maintained a public nuisance by increasing plastic waste," and alleged a violation of a Kansas state consumer protection law. On January 22, Defendants filed a joint motion for an extension of time to answer Plaintiffs' first amended complaint. On January 23, the court granted the motion and set the following deadlines: Defendants' motions to dismiss were due by March 10; Plaintiffs' motions in opposition are due by April 18; and Defendants' replies are due by May 28. On January 27, the court scheduled a conference for April 22 and notified the parties that a proposed scheduling order is due by April 8. On February 4, Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach filed a motion for limited intervention, arguing that he was doing so to "defend Kansas’s parens patriae and statutory authority." AG Kobach argued that the state, and not individual state counties, can join public welfare lawsuits that seek statewide relief. He explained that "Kansas has the right to defend its sovereignty from usurpation by one of its counties." On February 7, the court granted AG Kobach's motion to intervene. On February 24, Defendants filed a joint motion for an extension of time to answer Plaintiffs' first amended complaint. On March 3, AG Kobach filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff Ford County's class allegations for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and improper venue. On March 5, Plaintiffs filed a joint motion for an extension of time to file a response to AG Kobach's motion to dismiss. The court granted Plaintiffs' motion on the same day, and ordered Plaintiffs' to file a response by April 18. On March 7, one of the consumer Plaintiffs filed a voluntary notice of dismissal of his individual claims. On March 10, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' first amended complaint, which the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed an amicus curiae brief in support of on March 19. Plaintiffs' response to the Chamber of Commerce's brief is due April 18.

Allegations: Plaintiff, Los Angeles County, filed a lawsuit against Defendants PepsiCo, Inc., the Coca-Cola Company, and Pepsi's and Coke's bottling companies, alleging that Defendants, "the top plastic polluters in the world," played a significant role in plastic pollution's negative effects on the environment and public health. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants failed to disclose the significant health and environmental harms associated with their plastic beverage containers. The lawsuit claims that Defendants misinformed consumers by labeling their plastic products as "recyclable" despite knowing that plastic products cannot be disposed of without environmental impacts. Plaintiff also argues that Defendants engaged in disinformation campaigns that advertised false claims and led consumers to believe that purchasing Defendants' single-use plastic bottles was an environmentally responsible choice. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to stop Defendants from engaging in unfair and deceptive business practices, restitution for consumers for money obtained through these practices, and civil penalties of up to $2,500 per violation. Filed on 10/30/2024. See the complaint here.

Status: Pending. On December 2, Defendants filed a notice of removal to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On January 2, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to the Superior Court of the State of California. On March 14, the court granted Plaintiff's motion and remanded the case to state court. The Superior Court scheduled a case management conference for May 23.

Allegations: Plaintiff, a non-profit organization dedicated to ending plastic pollution, filed this lawsuit against Defendant, Stater Bros Markets (a supermarket chain), alleging that Defendant sells non-recyclable plastic bags in California in violation of a California law banning the sale of non-recyclable plastic bags. Plaintiff seeks an order enjoining Defendant's unlawful conduct and requiring Defendant to comply with its obligation to substantiate that its products are recyclable. Filed 6/3/2022. See the complaint here.

Status: Pending. On February 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint which listed Stater Bros Markets, Revolution Plastics Holdings LLC (a plastic production company), Revolution Sustainable Holdings LLC (a plastic waste company), and the California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery, as Defendants. On June 28, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which added AM Testing (a chemical testing company) as the fourth Defendant, and listed the California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery, as a Real Party In Interest. On July 31, the California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery filed a general denial. On March 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint, adding a cause of action that alleges a violation of California's Business and Professional Code § 17200 for unfair acts based on Defendant Stater Bros Markets' alleged unlawful sale of the plastic bags, and Defendant AM Testing's alleged fraudulent certification of the bags as recyclable. On December 12, Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal, but on February 19, 2025, the parties filed a joint informal discovery conference statement, which outlined discovery requests, disputes, and the parties' unsuccessful efforts to reach a resolution. On March 13, a joint complex case management conference was held. The next status conference has been scheduled for May 29.

Allegations: Plaintiff, Ford County, Kansas, filed a class action lawsuit (individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated) against Defendants Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron USA, Inc., Eastman Chemical Company, Celanese Corporation, Chevron Phillips Chemical Corporation, Dow Chemical Company, Dow Inc., Dupont de Nemours Inc., LyondellBasell Industries, and The American Chemistry Council, alleging that Defendants "made negligent and/or intentional representations regarding the recyclability of plastics, which led to the production and purchase of more plastics than otherwise would have occurred." Plaintiff argues that Defendants' representations resulted in high plastic prices and extreme sanitation issues in local landfills. The complaint explains that most plastics cannot be recycled and, instead, pollute the environment and contaminate soil, groundwater, surface water, and air with microplastics and toxic chemical additives (such as stabilizers, plasticizers, coatings, catalysts, and flame retardants). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have known since the 1950s that their representations and production of plastic products created a "throw-away lifestyle" and "a solid-waste crisis without a solution." The complaint explains that from the 1960s-2000s, Defendants encouraged the public to send plastics to landfills, and to burn or recycle plastic items, while knowing that these were not permanent solutions to the "plastics waste and pollution crisis." Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in public messaging on recycling that sought to relieve public and regulatory pressure concerning plastics, noting how "the actual viability of recycling mattered far less to the industry than perception." Plaintiff claims that Defendants created, exacerbated, and maintained a public nuisance by increasing plastic waste, proximately causing Plaintiff's injuries. Plaintiff demands a jury trial and requests the following relief: class action certification; an order requiring Defendant to pay to send notice to certified class members; appointment of Plaintiff as Class Representative and Plaintiff's counsel as Class Counsel; an injunction to enjoin Defendants from engaging in the deceptive, unfair, unconscionable, and unlawful business practices alleged in Plaintiff's complaint; a finding that Defendants caused a public nuisance and must provide abatement and clean-up of the public nuisance; compensatory damages; treble damages; pre- and post-judgment interest; punitive damages; attorneys' fees and costs; and any further relief the court deems just and proper. Filed on 11/27/2024. See the complaint here.

Outcome: Closed. On January 17, 2025, Plaintiff filed a voluntary notice of dismissal, and the case was terminated by the court. That same day, Plaintiff joined a Missouri-based class-action lawsuit as a Plaintiff. That case, Rodriguez et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation et al., No. 4:24-cv-00803 (W.D. Mo. filed 2024), lists as Defendants many of the same energy and petrochemical companies that were Defendants in Plaintiff's original lawsuit. Rodriguez is pending.