Late last month, the New York State Supreme Court granted PepsiCo’s request. dismiss plastic pollution lawsuit State Attorney General Letitia James filed suit.
The lawsuit, which sought civil penalties against food and beverage companies for causing plastic pollution in the Buffalo River, was “predatory,” according to the decision written by Judge Emilio Colaiacobo. He accused James’s office of making “fictitious liability claims that do nothing to solve the problems that exist.”
PepsiCo “did not pollute the Buffalo River or any other local waterways,” Coliacobo wrote. “Other people did it too!”
The unusually emphatic dismissal not only raises questions about similar lawsuits pending across the country, but also about the possibility of future lawsuits holding companies accountable for plastic pollution from their products. is being cast. Just the day before Colaiacobo’s decision was announced, Los Angeles County filed similar complaints against PepsiCo and Coca-Cola, alleging that both companies harmed public health and misled consumers about the effectiveness of plastic recycling. he claimed. city of baltimore filed a lawsuit himself Lawsuits against PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Frito-Lay, and plastic manufacturers, as well as two lawsuits in California, one from the state attorney general’s office and one from a coalition of environmental nonprofits. lawsuit) alleges that Exxon Mobil promoted plastic recycling even though it knew it was impossible. This is to keep up with waste generation.
But several lawyers Grist interviewed, as well as James’ office, said they were not concerned. Jill Heaps, senior legal director for the nonprofit Surfrider, called Coliakovo’s firing “unfortunate,” but said she expected it to be overturned on appeal. “I don’t think it’s going to have a negative impact on the lawsuits happening in California or elsewhere.”
Produced every year in America 73 million tons Approximately 95 percent of plastic waste is not recycled, and this is not only because the United States lacks adequate recycling infrastructure. Inherent properties of the material itself. All plastics that aren’t recycled end up being burned, sent to landfills, or become trash in the natural environment, where they break down into tiny pieces called microplastics. Scientists have found these fragments in virtually every environment they have ever studied and within the human body. hundreds of animal species. In humans, microplastics have been associated with health concerns such as: metabolic disorders and increased risk of heart attack.
The premise of the New York lawsuit and others like it is that major manufacturers of plastic products should be immune to these consequences and not blame consumers for improperly disposing of their products. In the view of prosecutors and environmental groups, companies should: have an economic responsibility to control the pollution they generate.
John Lamparski/AFP via Getty Images
James’ case was the first brought by a state against a major plastic polluter. In a complaint filed last year, James described PepsiCo’s trash as a “persistent and dangerous form of plastic pollution.” Her first legal claim against the company was that it caused a “public nuisance” to residents of the Buffalo River watershed. this is, 2022 survey After investigating all kinds of waste along the river, it was found that most of the waste was plastic, and PepsiCo was the main source of that plastic. The company’s plastic waste was identified three times more than the next largest contributor.
Another claim in the complaint concerned consumer protection laws. Although PepsiCo has “long recognized” the environmental and human health risks posed by single-use plastics, James’ office said PepsiCo concealed these risks in its public communications. said. Promote plastic recycling.
Mr. Colaiacobo denied both claims in the lawsuit. He said James “has failed to show any evidence” that PepsiCo knew its plastic packaging was contaminating, and that PepsiCo has “provided no evidence” that PepsiCo knew its plastic packaging was contaminating. appeared to agree with PepsiCo that it should not be held responsible. He characterized James’ claims as a slippery slope that could ultimately lead to litigation. Any As long as the plaintiff can construct a possible scenario linking the undesirable conduct to the products it manufactures.
Plastic pollution “is a purely legislative or executive function to remediate,” he wrote, calling the lawsuit “policy idealism.”
Mr. Heaps, who is part of the coalition that recently sued ExxonMobil in California, said Mr. Colaiacobo should not have dismissed the case so quickly. “The judge’s job in a motion to dismiss is to give all the preconditions in the plaintiff’s favor. Ask, ‘Is it possible to make this argument?’ and give the plaintiff permission to file,” she said. Ta. Additional evidence to do so. Something similar happened in a similar consumer protection lawsuit brought against Coca-Cola by the nonprofit Earth Island Institute. In August of this year, the Washington, D.C., Court of Appeals stated: Earth Island’s claim ‘seems plausible’ And they argued that they should be given an opportunity to further substantiate them in D.C. Superior Court.
Mr. Heaps said there were several other peculiarities to Mr. Kolaiakovo’s firing, starting with the statement that for a public nuisance claim to succeed, the product in question must be “defective or illegal.” pointed out.
“I don’t know where he came up with that,” she said. “I’ve never seen anything like that in any case law.”
Tyson Redenberger is a civil litigation attorney at Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, where he represents nonprofit organizations in California. Plastics lawsuit against ExxonMobil — Agreed. To justify a public nuisance claim, the product or activity must violate public health, morals, comfort, or other common rights. Redenberger listed a number of legal products that were found to have caused a public nuisance. Lead paint sold before 1978contributing to widespread health problems. “Defendants always argue, ‘Oh, my product is legal, I sell it in the state,'” he says. “But that’s not the standard for a nuisance.”
Roberto Machado Noah/Light Rocket via Getty Images
Heaps also criticized the emotional tenor of the decision. For example, the company uses an exclamation point to explain consumers’ responsibility for waste generation, rather than PepsiCo’s responsibility. She said it was “very unusual” to see an exclamation in a legal filing, adding, “I thought, ‘What law clerk wrote that?'”
In a statement to Grist, PepsiCo said it was pleased with the layoffs and “remains committed to reducing plastics and recycling effectively.”
“We continue to work with key partners to promote smart materials collection policies, improve recycling infrastructure, increase consumer awareness of the importance of recycling, reduce waste and reduce plastic waste,” said the company’s vice president. “We will establish a partnership focused on exploring innovative solutions to pollution.” Andrea Foote, Global Corporate Communications;
Earlier this year, PepsiCo said it probably would. miss self-imposed deadlines The company aims to make 100 percent of its packaging recyclable, compostable, biodegradable or reusable by 2025. The latest sustainability update reports a 6 per cent increase in the use of virgin plastic, compared to the company’s goal of reducing virgin plastic by a fifth by 2025. end of the year.
Earth Island Institute CEO Sumona Majumdar said she doesn’t think the New York state lawsuit will be a trigger. Her organization’s D.C. lawsuit has already proven the validity of consumer protection claims related to plastic pollution, as has another lawsuit recently filed by California’s Earth Island Institute. Public nuisance claim allowed to proceed Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and major consumer goods companies.
Sarah Gross, head of the city’s affirmative litigation division, is filing the lawsuit on behalf of the city. Public nuisance and consumer protection litigation against Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Frito-Lay, and major plastic manufacturers. “We respectfully disagree with the New York judge’s ruling and intend to proceed with the lawsuit,” she told Grist.
A spokesperson for the New York State Attorney General’s Office declined to say whether Mr. James would appeal to the appellate court, but said that, like Mr. Colaiakovo, there are cases where the purpose of “imposing punishment during a criminal investigation” is to “impose punishment during a criminal investigation.” They objected to seeing it as a species fishing expedition. Put it down.
“This legal theory is growing, others are pursuing it, and this one decision is certainly not the be-all and end-all,” the spokesperson said. “If I didn’t believe there was value in legal arguments, I wouldn’t have taken the step of filing a lawsuit.”
