Plastics Litigation Tracker

Guarini Center on Energy, Environment, and Land Use Law State Energy and Environmental Impact Center

This track­er was launched July 15, 2022. It was last updat­ed January 10, 2025.

The Plastics Litigation Tracker tracks cases addressing plastics across federal and state courts. It includes resolved cases and cases that are still pending. The cases can be filtered by category, plaintiff, defendant, and jurisdiction. They are listed in reverse chronological order based on the date of the latest update in each case. Where there is no decision, the cases will appear in alphabetical order. Descriptions of the categories can be found here. This blog post gives an introduction to the project and analyzes trends evident from the cases in the tracker at the time it was launched.

The tracker will be updated as cases are resolved and new cases are filed. To submit cases, updates, or corrections to this database, please email [email protected].

For any inquiries, please contact [email protected].

67 results match your search.   Download as CSV

Curtis v. 7-Eleven, Inc., No. 21-civ-6079 (N.D. Ill. 2024)

Plaintiff
Defendant
Latest Case Update
Jurisdiction
Category
Class Action
Industry
8/30/2024
Illinois
State Codes; False Advertising; Unfair Competition; Consumer Protection

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: Closed. In a September 13, 2022 order, the District Court denied in part and granted in part 7-Eleven’s December 10, 2021 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. 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. On December 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint and demand for a jury trial. From late 2022 through early 2024, the parties engaged in discovery and motion practice. A minute entry in the case's docket states that on August 12, 2024, Plaintiff and Defendant "reached a settlement in principle" and were "in the process of executing a settlement agreement." Based on this representation, the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice. On August 30, Plaintiff and Defendant submitted a stipulation of dismissal, where they stipulated to the dismissal of Plaintiff's claims, with prejudice. The stipulation noted that each party would bear their own attorneys' fees and costs.

Earth Island Inst. v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 1:21-cv-1926 (D.D.C. filed 2022)

Plaintiff
Defendant
Latest Case Update
Jurisdiction
Category
NGO
Industry
8/29/2024
Federal
State Codes; False Advertising

Allegations: Plaintiff, an environmental organization, brought an action against Defendant, 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. Filed 6/8/21. See the complaint here.

Status: Pending. On July 16, 2021, Defendant removed the action from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. 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, based on a lack of federal diversity jurisdiction. The court concluded that the parties lacked diversity jurisdiction because the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000. Following remand, on June 13, 2022, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss in the Superior Court. On November 10, 2022, the Superior Court granted Defendant's motion and dismissed Plaintiff's complaint. The court found that Defendant's statements were aspirational in nature and, therefore, did not violate the CPPA; were not tied to a "product or service;" and could not be "cobbled together to allege one general misrepresentation." On November 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. On March 14, 2023, Plaintiff-Appellant filed its appellate brief, where they raised claims concerning the application of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act. On March 21, the District of Columbia, led by its Attorney General Brian L. Schwalb, filed an Amicus brief in support of Earth Island Institute. On May 15, Coca-Cola filed its brief. On June 19, Earth Island Institute filed a reply brief. Oral arguments were held on November 28. On August 29, 2024, the Court of Appeals issued a decision reversing the District Court's order granting Defendant's motion to dismiss. In its decision, as an initial matter, the Court of Appeals held that Plaintiff had standing to bring its CPPA claim. On the merits, the court determined that Plaintiff had stated a facially plausible claim of misrepresentation and that Defendant's plastic packaging were a "product or service" for purposes of the CPPA. The court rejected Defendant's arguments that "aspirational" statements were not actionable under the CPPA; that misleading statements had to be a single statement and could not be grouped together to be actionable under the CPPA; and that Defendant's statements were protected under the First Amendment. The Court of Appeals remanded the case. No further proceedings have yet occurred in the District Court.

State of Minnesota, by its Attorney General, Keith Ellison, v. Reynolds Consumer Products, Inc., Reynolds Consumer Products, LLC, & Walmart Inc., No. 62-CV-23-3104 (Minn. Dist. Ct. 2024)

Plaintiff
Defendant
Latest Case Update
Jurisdiction
Category
Government
Industry
8/1/2024
Minnesota
State Codes; False Advertising; Consumer Protection

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.

Earth Island Institute v. Crystal Geyser Water Co., No. 20CIV01213 (Cal. Super. Ct., filed 2020)

Plaintiff
Defendant
Latest Case Update
Jurisdiction
Category
NGO
Industry
7/11/2024
California
State Codes; Public Nuisance; Consumer Protection

Allegations: Plaintiff, an environmental organization, brought an action against Crystal Geyser Water Co. and other plastic bottle producers (The Clorox Company, The Coca-Cola Company, PepsiCo, Inc., Nestlé USA, Inc., Mars, Incorporated, Danone North America, Mondelez Global LLC, Colgate-Palmolive Company, and The Procter & Gamble Company) seeking compensatory and equitable relief for injuries sustained as a result of plastic pollution in California's waterways, coasts, and ocean, which Plaintiff argues resulted from the dissemination of Defendants' products. Plaintiff also claimed that Defendants misinformed consumers about how their products become pollutants. Plaintiff brought these claims under California public nuisance law, strict product liability for failure to warn and design defect, breach of express warranty, and unlawful practices under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Filed 2/26/2020. See the complaint here.

Status: Pending. After Defendants unsuccessfully attempted to remove the case to federal court, Defendants filed a motion to quash the summons and dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, which was denied by the Superior Court of California of the County of San Mateo on June 6, 2022. On October 2, 2023, Earth Island filed a first amended complaint, which included additional facts and data to support its public nuisance claim and adds a new claim under California’s unfair competition law, which prohibits any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice. On July 11, 2024, the court issued an order sustaining demurrer and overruling demurrer to Plaintiff's first amended complaint. Specifically, regarding Plaintiff's first cause of action for violations of California's unfair competition law, the court ruled that Plaintiff did not plead sufficient facts to allege standing because Plaintiff did not plead actual reliance. It sustained demurrer to the first cause of action, and granted Plaintiff leave to amend. The court overruled demurrer on all other grounds, therefore denying Defendants' efforts to dismiss the case. A trial date has not yet been set.

Bargetto v. Walgreen Co., No. 3:22-cv-02639 (N.D. Cal. 2024)

Plaintiff
Defendant
Latest Case Update
Jurisdiction
Category
Class Action
Industry
6/14/2024
Federal
Plastic Ban; State Codes; False Advertising; Unfair Competition

Allegations: Plaintiff represents a class alleging that Defendant, Walgreen Co., continues to sell non-recyclable plastic bags despite California law SB 270 banning the sale of non-recyclable plastic bags. Plaintiff seeks an order enjoining Defendant's unlawful conduct, as well as damages to compensate them for the deceptive practices. Filed 4/29/2022. See the complaint here.

Status: Closed. On October 7, 2022, Walgreen Co. filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. On December 19, 2022, the court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss as to Plaintiff's cause of action concerning Defendant's alleged violation of SB 270, but denied the the motion on all other grounds. On August 10, 2023, the court issued a scheduling order, which set deadlines for filings and dates for litigation. According to the order, Plaintiff's motion for class certification was due by February 13, 2024. The court also ordered trial to begin on January 17, 2025. On March 12, Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. Defendant filed its opposition and response on April 9. On June 14, the court issued an order denying Plaintiff's motion to class certification and dismissing the action for lack of standing. The court found that a class did not exist because "common questions [did] not predominate over individual ones." The court also found that Plaintiff did not show by a preponderance of evidence that she has standing, and that further amendment of the complaint would be futile.

Michael Dotson et al. v. CG Roxane, LLC, No. 2:24-cv-02567 (C.D. Cal. removed 2024) [Previously: Michael Dotson v. CG Roxane, LLC, No. 24STCV04461 (Cal. Super. Ct. filed 2024)]

Plaintiff
Defendant
Latest Case Update
Jurisdiction
Category
Class Action
Industry
4/25/2024
Federal
State Codes; False Advertising; Consumer Protection

Allegations: Plaintiff, a consumer who purchased "Crystal Geyser" plastic bottled water, alleges individually and on behalf of a putative class, that Defendant, CG Roxane, LLC, a corporation that advertises, markets, sells, and distributes plastic bottled water under the brand name "Crystal Geyser," violated California's Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Business & Professions Code § 17200) and violated California's False Advertising Law (Cal. Business & Professions Code § 17500) by advertising and labeling Crystal Geyer plastic bottled water as "Natural Alpine Spring Water" when the water allegedly contains microplastics. Plaintiff filed the complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. Filed on 02/22/2024.

Outcome: Closed. On April 1, the case was removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). On April 25, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice, noting that Defendant had neither answered Plaintiff's complaint nor filed a motion for summary judgment.

Michael Dotson v. Danone Waters of America, LLC, No. 2:24-cv-02445 (C.D. Cal. removed 2024) [Previously: Michael Dotson v. Danone Waters of America, LLC, No. 24STCV04928 (Cal. Super. Ct. filed 2024)]

Plaintiff
Defendant
Latest Case Update
Jurisdiction
Category
Class Action
Industry
4/3/2024
Federal
State Codes; False Advertising; Unfair Competition

Allegations: Plaintiff, a consumer who purchased "Evian" plastic bottled water, alleges individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, that Defendant, Danone Waters of America, LLC, a corporation that advertises, markets, sells, and distributes plastic bottled water under the brand name "Evian," violated California's Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 and 17500) by advertising and labeling Evian plastic bottled water as "Natural Spring Water" when the water contains microplastics. Plaintiff filed the complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. Filed on 03/25/2024. See the complaint here.

Outcome: Closed. On March 28, the case was removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). On April 3, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice, noting that Plaintiff's counsel had conferred with Defendant's counsel, and that Defendant did not oppose dismissal.

Earth Island Inst. v. BlueTriton Brands, No. 2021-CA-003027 (D.C. Super. Ct. 2024)

Plaintiff
Defendant
Latest Case Update
Jurisdiction
Category
NGO
Industry
3/27/2024
Federal
State Codes; False Advertising; Consumer Protection

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 the complaint here.

Outcome: Closed. Defendant removed the case from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Plaintiff filed a motion for remand. On January 27, 2022, the District Court granted Plaintiff's motion and denied its request for fees and costs. On June 7, 2022, the Superior Court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss. On September 28, 2022, a motion was filed for the case to remain open, which was granted on September 30, 2022. A remote status hearing had been scheduled for April 26,2024 but on March 27, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal.

The Last Beach Cleanup v. Gelson's Markets, No. 22STCV18216 (Cal. Super. Ct. 2023)

Plaintiff
Defendant
Latest Case Update
Jurisdiction
Category
NGO
Industry
10/18/2023
California
Plastic Ban; State Codes

Allegations: Plaintiff, an environmental non-profit, alleges that Gelson's Markets continues to sell non-recyclable plastic grocery bags to consumers despite a California law requiring that all plastic reusable grocery bags be recyclable. Plaintiff seeks an order enjoining Defendant's unlawful conduct. Filed 6/3/2022. See the complaint here.

Status: Closed. On October 18, 2023, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a settlement agreement, whereby Defendant agreed to stop purchasing plastic bags for resale by November 1, 2023, and to stop selling or distributing plastic bags in California by January 31, 2024. Defendant also agreed to remove its in-store drop-off bins for plastic recycling, by December 31, 2023.

Downing v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., No. 21-08023 (1st Cir. 2023)

Plaintiff
Defendant
Latest Case Update
Jurisdiction
Category
Class Action
Industry
4/26/2023
Federal
False Advertising; Unfair Competition; Consumer Protection

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 the complaint here.

Outcome: Closed. On August 3, 2022, this action was stayed in light of 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. Plaintiff filed a stipulated motion to dismiss the case on April 18, 2023. The case was dismissed on April 26, 2023.