Plastics Litigation Tracker

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 argues that Defendants engaged in disinformation campaigns that advertised false claims and led consumers to believe that purchasing their single-use plastic bottles was an environmentally responsible choice, and that Defendants wrongly claimed that consumers could recycle their products, offsetting any environmental harm caused by the plastic bottles. The lawsuit was filed by County Counsel Dawyn R. Harrison on behalf of the People of the State of California, in response to complaints from consumers across the county and the state that plastic pollution is overwhelming Los Angeles. The lawsuit 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 federal court (the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California). On January 2, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to the Superior Court of the State of California. The district court ordered a hearing on the motion to take place on February 27, 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' companies 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.

Allegations: Plaintiff, the State of New York, led by its Attorney General Letitia James, brought an action against Defendants PepsiCo, Inc., Frito-Lay, Inc., and Frito-Lay North America, Inc., raising four causes of action: (1) public nuisance; (2) strict products liability: failure to warn; (3) violation of New York General Business Law § 349; and (4) repeated and persistent illegality in violation of New York Executive Law § 63(12). AG James seeks declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief for Defendants' failure to remedy harms and abate the public nuisance caused by its continued manufacturing, production, marketing, distribution, and sale of vast quantities of single-use plastic packaging. AG James argues that PepsiCo's single-use plastics "have become a dominant form of pollution in urban watersheds such as the Buffalo River," far exceeding any other source of identifiable waste found along the shorelines of the river and its tributaries. She explains that PepsiCo's single-use plastic products and packaging harms wildlife and interferes with the public's ability to use the river, and that microplastics and nanoplastics -- created when these single-use plastic items fragment into smaller pieces of plastic -- threaten freshwater ecosystems and human health. AG James states that microplastics have been detected in the City of Buffalo's drinking water supply and in popular game fish species in the river commonly consumed by the Buffalo community. She also argues that PepsiCo made misleading statements about the efficacy of plastic recycling and its efforts to combat plastic pollution, and that PepsiCo failed to warn consumers and the public about the risk of harm from its single-use plastic packaging. Filed 11/15/2023. See the complaint here.

Status: Pending. This case was originally filed in the New York Supreme Court, Erie County, but on December 19, 2023, PepsiCo filed a motion requesting that the case be assigned to the New York Commercial Division. The motion was granted on January 25, 2024, and the case was assigned to the Commercial Division. On October 31, 2024, the Supreme Court of New York, Erie County, issued a decision granting Pepsico's motion to dismiss in its entirety. The court held that Plaintiff failed to provide evidence to support its allegation that Defendant knew or should have forseen that its products would pollute the Buffalo River and its shores. It noted that "[w]hile no one doubts the harm litter and waste cause in our ecosystem, this does not create a civil cause of action from which to punish Pepsi/Frito Lay," explaining that "[p]lastic packaging is used by more than just Pepsi and Frito Lay." On December 9, AG James filed a notice of appeal, appealing the Supreme Court's decision to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Fourth Judicial Department. AG James has not yet filed an appellate brief.

Allegations: Plaintiff, the Connecticut Attorney General, brought an action against Reynolds Consumer Products, Inc., alleging that the company falsely and deceptively marketed Hefty trash bags as “recyclable” despite knowing they could not be recycled in Connecticut recycling facilities, in violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. The AG's office seeks injunctive relief, equitable relief, and civil penalties to redress injuries to Connecticut consumers from the defendant's business practices and product representations. Filed 6/14/2022. See the complaint here.

Status: Pending. On January 5, 2023, the Attorney General's Office filed a complex litigation application, which the court granted on January 17, 2023. Plaintiff disclosed its expert witness list on September 20, 2024, and Defendant disclosed its expert witness list on November 27. A trial management conference has been scheduled for November 10, 2025. Trial is set to begin on December 9, 2025.

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, and surface water and air with microplastics and toxic chemical additives (such as stabilizers, plasticizers, coatings, catalysts, and flame retardants). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants knew in 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 that plastics be sent to landfills, burned, or recycled, 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/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.

Status: Pending.

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 promising that first mechanical recycling, and now chemical recycling, is the solution 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). Plaintiff requests that the court compel Defendant to abate the ongoing public nuisance by establishing and contributing to an abatement fund; 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"); all temporary and permanent equitable relief required to prevent further pollution; and 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. A motion hearing has been set for February 13, 2025.

Allegations: Plaintiff, the State of Minnesota, led by its Attorney General Keith Ellison, brought this case against Defendants Reynolds Consumer Products, Inc. and Walmart Inc., seeking injunctive relief for selling Hefty recycling trash bags that are advertised as recyclable, when they bags are made from low-density polyethylene plastic, which cannot be processed at recycling facilities. AG Ellison explains that when recyclable items are placed in these bags and brought to waste municipalities in the State, the bag and its contents are deemed unrecyclable. AG Ellison argues that Defendant's marketing of the bags defrauded and deceived consumers, because all recyclable items that consumers place into Reynolds and Walmart's "recycling" bags end up at a landfill and are not recycled, contrary to customers' intentions. AG Ellison also argues that Defendants knowingly misled consumers, explaining that Reynolds recently changed the language on their products, instructing consumers to contact their local waste municipalities and ask if they recycle the bags -- even though no facility in Minnesota accepts them. Filed on 06/06/2023. See the complaint here.

Status: Closed. On August 1, 2024, AG Ellison announced settlements with Walmart, Inc. and Reynolds Consumer Products, Inc. As part of the settlements, the companies will not sell the bags in Minnesota for two and a half years and, afterwards, must visually mark them with “these bags are not recyclable.” The companies must also pay $216,670, which includes all profits from selling these bags. Reynolds agreed to carry out anti-greenwashing training and institute a new review process for marketing claims.

Allegations: Plaintiffs, the City of Philadelphia and other local governments, brought an action against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania seeking injunctive and declarative relief, alleging that a section of the State's annual Fiscal Code was unconstitutional. Plaintiff's also sought to enjoin the State from enforcing the contested section of the act. Plaintiffs alleged that the section, which prohibits a local governmental body or agency to enact or enforce a law, rule, regulation or ordinance imposing a tax on or relation to the use, disposition, sale, prohibition or restriction of single-use plastics, violated the State constitution. Filed 3/3/2021. See the complaint here.

Outcome: Closed. On April 1, 2022, Philadelphia's plastic bag ban went into effect. This case was discontinued as a result.

Allegations: Plaintiff, a trade association, brought an action against the City of Laredo, Texas, seeking declaratory judgment that an ordinance which banned commercial establishments from using single-use plastic or paper checkout bags was unenforceable. Plaintiffs argued that the ordinance was preempted by the Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act. Filed 9/22/2016.

Outcome: Closed. After the district court entered summary judgment in favor of Defendant, the Texas Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas reversed, see opinion here. Defendant appealed. On petition for review, the Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the appellate court's decision holding that the Solid Waste Disposal Act preempted the ordinance, rendering it invalid. See the opinion here.