Plastics Litigation Tracker

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. The parties have been ordered to attend a Hearing on Dispositive Motions on June 16, 2025, and a Trial Management Conference with the judge who signed the order, on November 10, 2025.

Allegations: Plaintiff, a consumer who bought foam cups, foam plates, party cups, and freezer bags that were marked “recyclable” from a 7-Eleven store in Chicago, Illinois, brought this case on behalf of herself and a purported consumer class against Defendant, 7-Eleven. The claims included (1) deceptive practices under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, (2) breach of express warranty, and (3) unjust enrichment. Plaintiff alleged that the “recyclable” label on the products was deceptive because the purchased products were made of plastic that was very unlikely to be accepted and reused by local recycling facilities. In addition, the foam plates and freezer bags lacked recycling designations, known as Resin Identification Codes (RICs), which provide recycling facilities the necessary information to sort and recycle the products. Plaintiff alleged that the absence of the RICs was deceptive to consumers. Filed 09/13/22.

Status: Pending. In a September 13, 2022, order, the District Court denied in part and granted in part 7-Eleven’s motion to dismiss, filed on December 10, 2021. First, the Court found that Plaintiff had sufficiently alleged an injury-in-fact for the purpose of standing in federal court as both an individual and as a class representative, on behalf of consumers who suffered “substantially similar” injuries after relying on similar labels on 7-Eleven products. However, the Court found that Plaintiff had no standing to seek an injunction against 7-Eleven, stating that there was a low probability she would be similarly misled in the future. The Court held that Plaintiff had correctly raised a "deceptive practices" claim as to the lack of RICs on the products, but not as to the “recyclable” labels. The Court defined “recyclable” as “capable of being recycled," and not "will be recycled," and determined that 7-Eleven had never represented anything about the likelihood of their products being recycled. Therefore, the Court held that Plaintiff’s “unrealistic” expectations were not sufficient to support her claim. In contrast, the Court held that without the RICs, plastic products such as foam plates and freezer bags cannot be separated or recycled, and so Plaintiff had sufficiently stated a "deceptive practices" claim here. The Court also permitted Plaintiff’s breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment claims to go forward to the extent they related to the lack of RIC designations. In December, 2022, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The parties are currently engaged in pre-trial motion practice. A trial date has not yet been set.

Allegations: Plaintiff, a consumer who purchased water bottles labeled "100% recyclable" (which were bottled by Niagara and sold by Costco), asserted several claims on behalf of a proposed class of New York consumers. The claims included (1) deceptive and unfair trade practices under NY General Business Law ("GBL") § 349, (2) false advertising under GBL § 350, (3) common law fraud, (4) breach of express warranty, and (5) unjust enrichment. Plaintiff alleged that Niagara's representation that the bottles were "100% Recyclable" was false and misleading to consumers, because not all components of the bottles were made of recyclable material, and also because the low recycling capacity in New York made other components of the bottles effectively non-recyclable. Filed 07/28/21. See complaint here.

Status: Pending. On August 5, 2022, the District Court dismissed all but one of Plaintiff's claims with prejudice. The Court held that Plaintiff had confused recycling access with whether a product was actually recycled, and, therefore, determined that Plaintiff had failed to show that Niagara had not complied with the FTC guidance—a necessary component of both GBL claims. The Court also concluded that Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to show fraudulent intent, and also failed to meaningfully distinguish its unjust enrichment claim from its other claims. Plaintiff was precluded from filing an amended complaint on all but one claim--its breach of express warranty claim. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint. Its deadline for doing so was 8/12/2022.

Allegations: Plaintiff, a customer who purchased single-serve plastic coffee pods made by Defendant, asserted a consumer claim under Mass. Gen. Laws c. 93A § 9 (“Chapter 93A”) on behalf of a proposed national class of consumers. Plaintiff alleged that the pods were not recyclable as defined under applicable Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) guidance, despite them being labeled as "recyclable." Filed 06/25/21. See complaint here.

Status: Closed. On August 3, 2022, this action was stayed in light of the Status Report 46, which advised the court that the Northern District of California had granted preliminary approval of a class action settlement in the related matter Smith v. Keurig Green Mountain Inc. No. 18-cv-06690 (N.D. Cal.) and had set a schedule, including a final fairness hearing set for December 8, 2022, for final approval. The parties were ordered to file a further status report within one week of any change to that schedule, or if the schedule was not changed, by December 15, 2022. Previously, on June 25, 2022, Plaintiff appealed the district court’s decision to strike the nationwide class allegations. The district court concluded that no such nationwide class could be certified under Rule 23 because Chapter 93A’s remedies do not extend to consumers who purchased the pods outside of Massachusetts. This case is closed. See the appeal, here.

Allegations: Plaintiff, an environmental organization, brought an action against BlueTriton Brands (formerly known as Nestlé Waters North America), seeking injunctive relief against Defendant's trade practices and declarative relief in the form of an order holding that Defendant's conduct is unlawful. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant violated the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act, arguing that Defendant's marketing is false and deceptive because the company portrays itself as "sustainable" and committed to reducing plastic pollution through its recycling targets, while falling short of those targets and continuing its environmentally harmful practices. Filed 8/27/21. See complaint here.

Status: Pending. On January 27, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted Plaintiff's motion to remand and denied its request for fees and costs. On June 7, 2022, Defendant's motion to dismiss was denied in superior court. On September 28, 2022, a motion was filed for the case to remain open, which was granted on September 30, 2022. On July 18, 2023, a short order was submitted. Settlement negotiations are currently being conducted. The parties will appear for a Remote Statute Hearing on September 22, 2023.

Allegations: Plaintiff, an environmental organization, brought an action against Walmart, Inc., seeking injunctive relief. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant's labeling of products as recyclable was material, untrue, and misleading, thus constituting unfair competition under California law and Section 4 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and also, that Defendant violated the California Environmental Marketing Claims Act. Filed 3/29/2021. See complaint here.

Outcome: Closed. On June 3, 2022, the parties filed a joint stipulation for dismissal. The court had previously granted Defendant's motion to dismiss with leave to amend, on the ground that Plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege, for purposes of Article III standing, an injury based on future diversions of resources.

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 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, Ryan Perri, brought a stockholder derivative action against members of the board of directors and upper management for Danimer Scientific, Inc., with Danimer Scientific serving as the nominal defendant. Plaintiff sought declarative relief and damages. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934, breached their fiduciary duties, unjustly enriched themselves, and wasted corporate assets by making false or misleading statements that failed to disclose that Danimer had deficient internal controls, misrepresented its operation size and regulatory compliance, and overstated the biodegradability of the company's product. Filed 10/6/2021. See complaint here. The suit's allegations are similar to those in a securities class action brought by Plaintiff Darryl Keith Rosencrants in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the same Defendant.

Status: Closed. The case was administratively closed on March 25, 2022. The case had been temporarily stayed on October 20, 2021 until the resolution of Defendants' motion to dismiss in the securities litigation. The case was consolidated with another case filed against Defendants, Berezin v. Croskrey, et al., No. 1:23-cv-00149-WBC (D.Del).

Allegations: Plaintiff, an environmental organization, brought an action against Coca-Cola Co., seeking declarative and injunctive relief. Specifically, Plaintiff asked the court to find that Coca-Cola's conduct was in violation of the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA), grant an injunction barring conduct that violates the CPPA, and order reasonable attorney's fees. Plaintiff alleged that Coca-Cola had engaged in false and deceptive marketing by representing itself as a "sustainable and environmentally friendly company" despite being one of the world's largest contributors to plastic pollution. Defendant Coca-Cola Co. removed the action from the Superior Court of D.C. to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Filed 7/16/21. See complaint here.

Status: Closed. On March 24, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted Earth Island Institute’s motion to remand the case to the Superior Court of D.C., based on a lack of diversity jurisdiction. On November 10, 2022, the court dismissed Plaintiff's claim that Defendant violated the Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA). It also found that Defendant's advertisements promoted their sustainable initiatives were not deceptive or and did not violate the CPPA. The case was closed on 04/06/2022.

Allegations: Plaintiff, an environmental group, brought an action against Coca-Cola and BlueTriton Brands, Inc. (formerly Nestle Waters North America, Inc.), seeking injunctive relief precluding the sale of plastic bottled water unless the packaging and marketing are modified to remove "100% Recyclable" from the labeling. Plaintiff alleged that this marketing constituted unlawful, unfair, and deceptive business practices, in violation of California Public Policy, the California Environmental Marketing Claims Act, and the Federal Trade Commission Green Guides because not every component of the bottles can be recycled. Filed 6/16/21. See complaint here.

Status: Closed. On March 8, 2022, the case was terminated and was consolidated with Swartz v. Coca-Cola (No. 3:21-cv-0463).