Plastic Waste and Microplastics
Plastics Litigation Tracker
WA
OR
CA
NV
AZ
UT
Nuisance Cases
Local Pollution Cases
Greenwashing / Consumer Protection Cases
AK
TX
FL
HI
NY
NM
MT
ID
SC
NC
PA
IL
IN
OH
MI
ME
LA
GA
AL
MS
NJ
OK
MN
WI
CO
WY
ND
SD
NE
KS
VA
IA
MO
AR
WV
VT
NH
MA
CT
MD
KY
TN
DE
This interactive feature is best experienced on desktop.
© 2025 King & Spalding LLP
kslaw.com
About King & Spalding
Contact Us
Disclaimer
Minnesota
9,999
9,999
9,999
active cases
metric
settled cases
WDC
Washington, D.C.
Ongoing
Minnesota v. Reynolds, June 2023, deceptive trade practices as to recyclability of LDPE recycling bags
New York
Texas
Settled
Formosa Plastics, October 2019, Formosa agreed to settle Clean Water Act lawsuit related to plastic pollution in Texas waterways for $50 million
South Carolina
Settled
Frontier Logistics, March 2021, Frontier Logistics agreed to settle Clean Water Act lawsuit related to plastic pollution in Charleston Harbor for $1 million.
Illinois
California
California
BY THE NUMBERS
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Ongoing
New York v. PepsiCo, November 2023, nuisance, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution.
Dorris v. Danone, January 2024, deceptive trade practices as to claims of carbon neutrality in relation to sale of plastic water bottles.
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Earth Island v. Crystal Geyser, February 2020, nuisance and unfair competition claim related to plastic pollution.
BNSF Railway, April 2024, San Diego Coastal
Environmental Rights Foundation sent BNSF notice of Clean Water Act violation and notice of intent to sue.
Dotson v. Danone, March 2024, deceptive trade practices as to microplastics in Evian drinking water. Ongoing.
Miller v. Philips North America and Cortez v. Handi-Crafi, exposure to microplastics from baby bottles and cups.
Bruno v. BlueTriton, February 2024, deceptive trade practices as to microplastics in Arrowhead drinking water.
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Swartz v. Coca-Cola, June 2021, deceptive trade practices as to recyclability of water bottles.
Weingartner v. Colgate-Palmolive, August 2023, deceptive trade practices as to “recyclable” Colgate toothpaste tubes.
Dotson v. CG Roxane, February 2024, deceptive trade practices as to microplastics in Crystal Geyser drinking water.
Patane v. Nestle, August 2017: deceptive trade practices as to representations regarding Poland Spring bottled water.
Cortez v. Handi-Craft Company, June 2024: exposure to microplastics from baby bottles and sippy cups.
Dismissed. Appeal pending.
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Earth Island v. Coca-Cola, June 2021, deceptive trade practices by marketing itself as sustainable and environmentally friendly company while contributing to plastic pollution.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Kansas
Dismissed
! Ford County v. ExxonMobil, et al. November 2024: public nuisance claim based on the defendants’ continued manufacturing and marketing plastic products despite awareness of the limitations of recycling. Read more »
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Missouri
Ongoing
! Rodriguez, et al. v. ExxonMobil, et al. December 2024: antitrust, consumer protection and nuisance claim based on the defendants’ continued manufacturing and marketing plastic products despite awareness of the limitations of recycling. Read more »
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Connecticut
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Ongoing
EPatane v. Nestle, August 2017: Deceptive trade practices concerning representations about purity of Poland Spring’s “100% Natural Spring Water”. Read more »
EConnecticut v. Reynolds, June 2022: Deceptive trade practices as to recyclability of Hefty trash bags. Read more »
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Maryland
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Last Updated: December 10, 2025
Settled.
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Earth Island Inst. v. BlueTriton, August 2021: deceptive trade practices as to sustainability of plastic products and processes used in manufacturing those products.
Ongoing
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Daly v. Danone, February 2024, deceptive trade practices as to microplastics in Evian drinking water.
Slowinski v. BlueTriton, December 2023: deceptive trade practices as to microplastics in Ice Mountain drinking water.
Borovoy v. Procter & Gamble, May 2024: deceptive trade practices as to “pure cotton” Tampax products.
Dismissed in part
Baltimore v. Coca Cola
Curtis v. 7-Eleven, October 2021: deceptive trade practices as to the recyclability of 7-Eleven’s “recyclable” foam cups and plates, party cups, and freezer bags.
Dismissed
Duchimaza v. Niagara Bottling, July 2021: deceptive trade practices as to the recyclability of Niagara Bottling, LLC’s plastic water bottles. Dismissed.
California
Ongoing
EPatane v. Nestle, August 2017: deceptive trade practices as to representations regarding Poland Spring bottled water. Read more »
! Earth Island Institute v. Crystal Geyser: et al February 2020, nuisance and unfair competition claim related to plastic pollution. Read more »
EWeingartner v. Colgate-Palmolive, August 2023: deceptive trade practices as to “recyclable” Colgate toothpaste tubes. Read more »
2BNSF Railway, April 2024: San Diego Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation sent BNSF notice of Clean Water Act violation and notice of intent to sue.
ECortez v. Handi-Craft Company, June 2024: exposure to microplastics from baby bottles and sippy cups. ! People v. ExxonMobil, September 2024: nuisance and consumer protection claims related to recyclability of plastics. Read more » ! Sierra Club, et al. v. ExxonMobil, September 2024: nuisance and consumer protection claims related to recyclability of plastics. Read more » ! People v. PepsiCo, et al., October 2024: nuisance and consumer protection claims based on representations about the recyclability of plastic beverage containers . Read more »
! Exxon v. Bonta, January 2025: defamation claims based on investigation and lawsuits against plastics industry. Read more »
mLewis v. Supplying Demand, October 2025: deceptive trade practices as to microplastics exposure from Liquid Death aluminum cans.
EDiuguid v. Supplying Demand, November 2025: deceptive trade practices for making allegedly false representations that 10% of profits from each can of Liquid Death sold would be donated to combat plastic pollution.
Stayed
mMerlo v. Water Wipes, June 2025: Deceptive trade practices as to microplastics exposure from baby wipes. Read more »
Settled
ESmith v. Keurig Green Mountain: September 2018: deceptive trade practices as to single-serve coffee pods. Read more »
ELast Beach Cleanup v. TerraCycle: March 2021: deceptive trade practices by marketing single-use plastics and difficult-to-recycle products as recyclable through TerraCycle programs despite strict participation limits. Read more »
Dismissed
EBaker v. Nestle, April 2018: deceptive trade practices as to microplastics in Nestle drinking water. Read more »
EGreenpeace v. Wal-Mart, January 2021: deceptive trade practices as to Wal-Mart’s in-house recyclable plastic products. Read more »
EHanscom v. Reynolds, May 2021: deceptive trade practices as to Hefty “recycling” bags. Read more »
ESwartz v. Coca-Cola, June 2021: deceptive trade practices as to recyclability of water bottles. Read more »
EBargetto v. Walgreen, April 2022: deceptive trade practices as to sale and distribution of plastic grocery bags. Read more »
EWoolard v. Reynolds, October 2022: deceptive trade practices as to recyclability of LDPE bags. Read more »
EPeterson v. Glad Products, February 2023: deceptive trade practices as to recyclability of plastic trash bags. Read more »
mBruno v. BlueTriton, January 2024; deceptive trade practices as to microplastics in Arrowhead drinking water. Read more »
mDotson v. Danone, February 2024: deceptive trade practices as to microplastics in Evian drinking water. Read more »
mDotson v. CG Roxane, February 2024: deceptive trade practices as to microplastics in Crystal Geyser drinking water. Read more »
mMiller v. Handi-Craft Co., June 2024: deceptive trade practices as to microplastics exposure from baby bottles and cups. Read more »
mMiller v. Philips North America, June 2024: deceptive trade practices as to microplastics exposure from baby bottles and cups. Read more »
mCheslow v. S.C. Johnson, April 2025: deceptive trade practices as to microplastics exposure from Ziploc plastic bagsOn July 1, S.C. Johnson moved to dismiss on the grounds that the named plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that she was injured, Ziploc bags leached plastics, and that the claims were preempted. Later that month, the suit was referred to mediation. Read more »
Ongoing
EDorris v. Danone, October 2022, deceptive trade practices as to claims of carbon neutrality in relation to sale of plastic water bottles. Read more »
! New York v. PepsiCo, et al, November 2023, nuisance, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution. Read more »
Dismissed
$ Rosencrantz v. Danimer, May 2021: securities fraud as to statements about biodegradability of bioplastic product Nodax Read more »
EDuchimaza v. Niagara Bottling, July 2021: deceptive trade practices as to the recyclability of Niagara Bottling LLC’s plastic water bottles. Read more »
mMoore v. BlueTriton, March 2024: deceptive trade practices as to microplastics in Poland Spring drinking water. Read more »
Washington, D.C.
Ongoing
mToxin Free USA v. Costco, May 2025, deceptive trade practices as to microplastics exposure from baby wipes. Read more »
mPlastic Pollution Coalition v. Just Goods, July 2025, deceptive trade practices as to microplastics exposure from Evian bottled water. Read more »
Stayed
EPlastic Pollution Coalition v. PepsiCo, April 2025, deceptive trade practices concerning representations about purity of Aquafina bottled water. pollution. Read more »
Dismissed
EEarth Island Institute v. Coca-Cola, June 2021, deceptive trade practices by marketing itself as sustainable and environmentally friendly company while contributing to plastic pollution. Read more »
mPlastic Pollution Coalition v. Danone, July 2024, deceptive trade practices as to microplastics exposure from Just Water products. Read more »
Settled
EEarth Island Institute v. BlueTriton, August 2021: deceptive trade practices as to sustainability of plastic products and processes used in manufacturing those products. Read more »
Maryland
Ongoing
! Baltimore v. Coca Cola, June 2024, nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers.
Stayed
! City of Baltimore v. PepsiCo, et al. June 2024: nuisance, design defect, failure to warn and deceptive trade practices related to plastic pollution against plastics manufacturers Read more »
Minnesota
Ongoing
EMinnesota v. Reynolds, June 2023, deceptive trade practices as to recyclability of LDPE recycling bags. Read more »
Illinois
Dismissed
mDaly v. The Wonderful Co. LLC, January 2021, deceptive trade practices as to microplastics in Fiji drinking water. Read more »
mSlowinski v. BlueTriton, December 2023: deceptive trade practices as to microplastics in Ice Mountain drinking water. Read more »
mDaly v. Danone, February 2024, deceptive trade practices as to microplastics in Evian drinking water. Read more » Settled
ECurtis v. 7-Eleven, October 2021: deceptive trade practices as to the recyclability of 7-Eleven’s “recyclable” foam cups and plates, party cups, and freezer bags. Read more »
EBorovoy v. Procter & Gamble, May 2024: deceptive trade practices as to “pure cotton” Tampax products. Read more »
Texas
Ongoing
! Exxon v. Bonta, January 2025: defamation claims based on investigation and lawsuits against plastics industry. Read more »
Settled
2Waterkeeper v. Formosa Plastics, July 2017: Clean Water Act lawsuit related to plastic pollution in Texas waterways. Read more »
South Carolina
Settled
2Waterkeeper v. Frontier Logistics, March 2020: Clean Water Act lawsuit related to plastic pollution in Charleston Harbor. Read more »
Latest Update: In August 2020, the Court denied Nestle’s motion for summary judgment with one exception as to the plaintiffs’ statutorily barred Rhode Island state law claim. In doing so, the Court largely rejected Nestle’s claims that: (1) no private right of action existed under the at-issue state laws; (2) the claims are preempted by the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act; (3) the lawsuit constituted an impermissible collateral attack on state agency actions; and (4) Nestle’s activities fell within various state statutes’ safe harbor exemptions from liability. In December 2023, Nestle filed another motion for summary judgment, on very similar grounds to its earlier motion, and because Nestle claims that the purported representations were not misleading. A hearing on Nestle’s motion was set for July 9.
Latest Update: In January 2019, the Court granted Nestle’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend, finding claims regarding the term “purified water” preempted given FDA’s approval of the labeling. On January 22, 2019, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint but for unknown reasons, voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice only two weeks later.
Latest update: In February 2022, the parties reached a settlement, pursuant to which, Keurig may not label, market, advertise, or otherwise represent the coffee pods as recyclable without a clear qualifying statement.
Latest update: In September 2021, the Court granted Wal-Mart’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend, on the grounds that Greenpeace lacked standing to pursue its claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law. According to the Court, Greenpeace was never misled, as its lawsuit was “in response to its belief that the challenged statements were false.” Following two more unsuccessful attempts to allege Article III standing, Greenpeace dismissed the case without prejudice in June 2022.
Latest update: In November 2023, the parties reached a settlement. Pursuant to the settlement, TerraCycle agreed to track materials for recycling and develop standards for third-party recyclability certifications and substantiations. In addition, TerraCycle may only permit its name to be used for products that are part of a recycling program in which no budget restrictions prevent products from being accepted.
Latest update: In December 2022, the Court denied Walgreens' motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint, finding that the plaintiff sufficiently pled that because the bags were not “recyclable” according to statutory and agency definitions of the term, the markings on Walgreens' reusable bags indicating recyclability were misleading to a reasonable consumer. On June 14, the Court denied the plaintiff’s motion for certification—reasoning that common questions do not predominate over individual ones—and dismissed the action with prejudice for lack of standing.
Latest update: In July 2023, the Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss—brought on standing grounds—reasoning that without the requested relief, consumers would not know whether the recyclability claims on the label remain false. In November 2023, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his claims with prejudice, and those of the putative class without prejudice, for unknown reasons.
Latest Update: In June 2022, the Court denied BlueTriton’s motion to dismiss, finding that: (1) Earth Island had standing, (2) the challenged representations constituted “trade practices” under D.C. law (despite that they were on websites and social media rather than marketing or sales materials); and (3) whether the representations were misleading to a reasonable consumer when viewed in context was a question for the jury. In February 2024, the parties reached a settlement on unknown terms and conditions.
Latest Update: On February 26, 2024, BlueTriton filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint on the grounds that the plaintiffs: (1) did not put forth sufficient evidence of a factual nexus with the products they purchased; (2) did not allege that BlueTriton made any representations regarding the water’s presence or absence of microplastics; (3) did not plausibly plead any diminished value or injury; and (4) lacked standing.
On August 9, 2024, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the case, holding that the lawsuit is preempted by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The Court also held that no reasonable consumer would be misled by the failure to make a disclosure about the presence of microplastics on a molecular level.
On August 23, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. After reviewing the amended complaint, the Court held that it suffered from the same flaws as the original complaint; shortly thereafter, the plaintiff dismissed the case.
Latest Update: In September 2022, the Court granted 7-Eleven’s motion to dismiss as to the plaintiff’s claim that use of the term “recyclable” on 7-Eleven’s products was misleading because of the lack of available recycling facilities. In its ruling, the Court reasoned that no reasonable consumer would understand use of the term as a guarantee that the product would be recycled. The plaintiff’s claim regarding failure to include the proper identification code was sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. In January 2024, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification with respect to the remaining claims.
On July 19, following a hearing, the Court denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification, holding that individual questions predominated over common questions. The parties thereafter reached a settlement.
Latest Update: In August 2022, the Court granted Niagara Bottling’s motion to dismiss with prejudice, holding that as a matter of law the representation “100% recyclable” was not plausibly pled to be false or misleading.
Latest Update: In April 2023, Danone filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that none of the statements regarding carbon neutrality were misleading. On January 10, 2024, the Court granted Danone’s motion only as to the breach of implied warranty claim, as the plaintiff did not allege that the product was unfit for its ordinary use. As to the remainder of the plaintiff’s claims, the Court could not determine as a matter of law that use of the term “carbon neutral” did not have the capacity to mislead. Danone filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s ruling on March 27.
On November 14, the Southern District of New York granted in part the motion for reconsideration. On reconsideration, the Court held that there were context clues that should have alerted a reasonable consumer of what carbon neutral meant. The Court dismissed the claims with leave to amend, setting December 13 as the deadline to file an amended complaint. The plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint by the Court’s deadline, and on April 14, 2025, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice.
Latest Update: In June 2022, the Court denied BlueTriton’s motion to dismiss, finding that: (1) Earth Island had standing, (2) the challenged representations constituted “trade practices” under D.C. law (despite that they were on websites and social media rather than marketing or sales materials); and (3) whether the representations were misleading to a reasonable consumer when viewed in context was a question for the jury.
In February 2024, the parties reached a settlement pursuant to which neither company will sell the bags in Minnesota for two and a half years. Thereafter, the term “recycling bags” may not be used and companies must conspicuously state that the bags are not recyclable. The defendants will also pay a fine, develop and enforce anti-greenwashing training, and establish a review process for marketing claims.
Latest Update: On March 25, 2024, the case was removed to the Northern District of Illinois based on diversity jurisdiction. On June 28, 2024, Danone filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that: (1) the claims are preempted by the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act; (2) the plaintiffs failed to put forth evidence of microplastics in the product they purchased; (3) use of the term “natural spring water” was not deceptive; (4) the plaintiffs did not allege reasonable reliance or injury; and (5) the plaintiffs lacked standing.
On November 5, 2024, the Northern District of Illinois granted Danone’s motion without prejudice. The Court held that the plaintiff’s claims were preempted, reasoning that courts to address this have all held there is no FDA requirement to identify a water’s source beyond labeling it as “spring water.”
On December 6, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint. On February 18, 2025, the plaintiffs then voluntarily dismissed the case for unknown reasons.
Latest Update: In May 2023, the Court sustained the defendants’ demurrer with leave to amend, reasoning that Earth Island had not sufficiently pled (1) standing or facts to allege actual reliance on the defendants’ purported misrepresentations, and (2) that the defendants had promoted a product for hazardous use, as required to maintain a nuisance claim. Following this ruling, on October 2, 2023, Earth Island filed its First Amended Complaint, repurposing its dismissed Consumer Legal Remedies Act claim into a new claim for violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law. On November 16, 2023 the defendants demurred to Earth Island’s First Amended Complaint on the grounds that the Complaint: (1) did not cure the failure to allege actual reliance on any purported mispresentations, and (2) still did not sufficiently allege a hazardous use as required for nuisance claim. A hearing was held on April 22, and the demurrers were taken under submission by the Court.
On July 11, 2024, Judge Swope overruled the defendants’ demurrer as to the nuisance claim, reasoning that Earth Island properly alleged that plastic producers could be held liable for a public nuisance based on allegations that they promoted their products as recyclable while knowing that it was difficult to do so, and by doing so also contributed to a public hazard. The Court compared the situation to promoting lead paint or instructing dry cleaners to dump solvents into sewers.
On July 31, 2024, Earth Island filed its Second Amended Complaint. On September 17, the defendants again demurred, claiming that Earth Island did not cure its deficiencies as to the CLRA claim. A hearing on the demurrer and motion to strike was held on January 27, 2025. The Court sustained the defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend as to the Unfair Competition Law claims. The defendants have recently filed answers to the operative complaint, which now consists of a sole claim for nuisance.
Latest Update: On March 28, 2024, the case was removed to the Central District of California.
On April 3, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice for unknown reasons.
Latest Update: On March 4, 2024, BlueTriton moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint on the grounds that (1) the plaintiffs’ claims are preempted; (2) the plaintiffs failed to allege mispresentations, reliance or injury, and (3) the plaintiffs lack standing to seek injunctive relief. The Court granted BlueTriton’s motion on May 6, and the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on May 28. On June 18, BlueTriton moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint on the same grounds as its original motion. On May 6, following a hearing, the Court granted BlueTriton’s motion on the preemption grounds. The Court reasoned that any requirement to more accurately disclose the composition of the product would go beyond what the Food Drug, and Cosmetic Act requires.
On August 23, the Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint, however, shortly thereafter dismissed the case.
Latest Update: The Court previously dismissed with leave to amend two versions of the plaintiffs’ complaint, concluding that the plaintiffs possessed standing to sue but the claims were not plausible under California law or the Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides. According to the Court, the prior versions fell short because California law allows unqualified claims about recyclability if the entire product is recyclable through established programs available to a substantial majority of Californians, but the complaint focused only on minor components of the water bottles.
On April 8, 2024, the Court rejected the defendants’ third attempt to dismiss the claims, reasoning that the Second Amended Complaint overcame this shortfall by framing the allegations around the recyclability of the entire water bottle, in a manner sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.
On April 29, 2024, the defendants filed answers to the Complaint.
On June 25, 2025, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case for unknown reasons.
Latest Update: On February 6, 2024, the Court denied Colgate-Palmolive’s motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, distinguishing from cases which were dismissed because no reasonable consumer would interpret the term “100% recyclable” as a guarantee that the product would actually be recycled. According to the Court, the plaintiffs here instead asserted that no reasonable consumer would expect the product to not be accepted by any recycling program.
On February 29, 2024, Colgate filed its answer to the Complaint. The parties’ mediation deadline is July 15, 2025.
Latest Update: On April 1, 2024, the case was removed to the Central District of California. On April 25, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice for unknown reasons, noting in the dismissal that the defendant neither answered the complaint nor filed a motion for summary judgment.
Latest Update: On March 3, 2025, the Court granted The Wonderful Company's motion to dismiss for lack of standing, reasoning that allowing a suit of this type to proceed would open the door to enabling any purchaser of any consumable product to file a lawsuit.
On May 7, 2025, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Select a state or jurisdiction to view case information.
Latest Update: On October 31, 2024, the Supreme Court of New York granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, reasoning that the State failed to provide evidence to support its claim for public nuisance that they knew or should have foreseen that their products would pollute the Buffalo River area. The Court rejected the notion that manufacturers are ultimately responsible for their litter, as well as the notion that the failure to meet one’s corporate post-consumer recycled content goals is fraud or an actionable misrepresentation. The Court reasoned that these goals are not relevant to the issue being decided.
On December 9, 2024, the State appealed the decision. The appeal is pending.
Latest Update: People v. Exxon and Sierra Club, et al. v. Exxon were related on November 12 in the N.D. Cal. after both were removed. On December 9, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, arguing that it has not sought relief under federal law or raised any maritime claims, there is no federal enclave jurisdiction, and Exxon cannot establish federal officer jurisdiction.
On February 24, 2025, following oral argument, the Court granted the State’s motion for remand in People v. Exxon on the grounds that neither maritime jurisdiction, the federal enclave doctrine and/or federal officer jurisdiction apply to the claims. The Court denied the motion in Sierra Club on the grounds that the requirements of diversity jurisdiction were satisfied. Exxon appealed the Northern District’s remand order, and has moved for a stay of the case pending appeal.
Latest Update: People v. Exxon and Sierra Club, et al. v. Exxon were related on November 12 in the N.D. Cal. after both were removed. On December 9, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, arguing that it has not sought relief under federal law or raised any maritime claims, there is no federal enclave jurisdiction, and Exxon cannot establish federal officer jurisdiction.
On February 24, 2025, following oral argument, the Court granted the State’s motion for remand in People v. Exxon on the grounds that neither maritime jurisdiction, the federal enclave doctrine and/or federal officer jurisdiction apply to the claims. The Court denied the motion in Sierra Club on the grounds that the requirements of diversity jurisdiction were satisfied. Exxon appealed the Northern District’s remand order, and has moved for a stay of the case pending appeal.
Latest Update: On December 2, 2024, the defendants removed the case to the Central District of California. On January 2, the County filed a motion to remand. On March 27, after oral argument, the Court granted the County’s motion, and remanded the case back to Los Angeles.
Latest update: On January 21, 2022, the Court granted Reynolds’ second motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiff’s allegations failed to establish standing to seek injunctive relief. The Court reasoned that because the Complaint alleged that the recycling process works without the bags, claims that the plaintiff continued to desire purchasing the recycling bags were implausible. The Court distinguished from allegations where a continued desire to purchase products was based on the plaintiffs’ belief in the utility of the product.
On May 11, 2022, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint, adding facts intended to clarify that she desired to purchase the recycling bags in the future. On August 10, 2022, the Court denied Reynolds’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and held that the amendments cured the deficiencies with respect to standing.
On August 28, 2022, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case for unknown reasons.
Latest update: In July 2023, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice for unknown reasons. The parties had not yet briefed any motions on the merits.
Latest Update: In June 2022, the Court denied BlueTriton’s motion to dismiss, finding that: (1) Earth Island had standing, (2) the challenged representations constituted “trade practices” under D.C. law (despite that they were on websites and social media rather than marketing or sales materials); and (3) whether the representations were misleading to a reasonable consumer when viewed in context was a question for the jury. In February 2024, the parties reached a settlement on unknown terms and conditions.
On August 29, 2024, the D.C. Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of Earth Island’s lawsuit, rejecting the notion that aspirational statements couldn’t be actionable under D.C.’s consumer protection statute. The Court further held that Coca-Cola’s claims were “very much” statements about its goods and services for purposes of the statute, and that misleading misrepresentations do not need to be in a single statement to be actionable. The Court also rejected Coca-Cola’s First Amendment defense. The Court of Appeals remanded the case for further proceedings
Latest Update: On January 6, 2025, Exxon filed a defamation lawsuit against California Attorney General Rob Bonta based on its “repeatedly and publicly attacking ExxonMobil with false accusations of being a ‘liar’ and declarations that advanced recycling is a ‘myth’ and a ‘sham.’”
Following service of the Complaint, the Court granted an extension of time to answer the complaint until April 25, 2025.
Latest Update: The defendants have filed joint and separate motions to dismiss.
Before the Court issued a ruling on the defendants’ motions to dismiss, the parties stipulated to a stay pending the Maryland Supreme Court’s ruling in Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. B.P., et al.
Latest Update: Ford County voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit less than two months after it was filed.
Latest Update: On April 7, 2025 the United States District Court for the District of Western Missouri ordered that the case be transferred to the District of Kansas for further proceedings based on the first-filed rule.
KS
m
Securities Cases
$
Microplastics Cases
FL
GA
Latest Update: On February 28, 2025, Reynolds filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that no reasonable trier of fact could find that the labeling and marketing of Hefty recycling bags is deceptive or unfair as a matter of law. A hearing on the motion is set for June 16, and trial is set to begin on December 9, 2025.
On June 16, 2025, the Court heard oral argument; during the hearing, the Court highlighted two unsettled issues, including whether a product label can constitute prima face evidence of deceptiveness, even without evidence that the label is likely to mislead consumers. The parties have submitted supplemental briefing, and the motion is still under submission by the Court.
Trial is set to begin on May 12, 2026.
Settled
$Theodore v. Purecycle Technologies, May 2021: securities fraud as to statements about recycling company’s polypropylene-recycling capabilities . Read more »
Latest Update: In August 2022, the Middle District of Florida dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to plead scienter. Also in August 2022, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, supplementing the allegations with additional specificity on the defendant’s “touting” of misrepresentations.
In June 2023, the Court held that the plaintiffs sufficiently pled scienter for all but one of the defendants. The parties later settled the case in mediation.
Florida
Dismissed
mBarrales v. Newell Brands, July 2024: deceptive trade practices as to microplastics exposure from baby bottles and cups. Read more »
Latest Update: On November 20, 2024, Newell filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that no reasonable consumer would interpret “BPA-free” to mean free of polypropylene plastic, which does not contain BPA. Newell cited to an Illinois court’s dismissal of a similar case based on the reasoning that microplastics are “everywhere” and no reasonable consumer would expect a disclosure of their presence. Newell further argued that there are no factual allegations contending that the plaintiff actually used the bottles or whether her child had suffered harm from use.
On December 16, 2024, Barrales filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice before the Court ruled on the motion to dismiss.
Georgia
Ongoing
EPhiladelphia v. Bimbo Bakeries and S.C. Johnson, September 2025: Deceptive trade practices as to recyclability of Ziploc and bread bags. Read more »
Settled
2Pennenvironment, Inc. v. BVPV Styrenics, December 2023: Clean Water Act lawsuit based on unlawful discharge of plastic pellets into Ohio River. Read more »
Latest Update: In 2025, the parties reached a settlement, pursuant to which BVPV Styrenics will redesign its stormwater collection and treatment systems, install advanced monitoring technology, and pay approximately $2.6 million for its Clean Water Act violations, which will be funneled back into the community in an effort to combat plastic pollution.
Latest Update: In 2021, Frontier Logistics agreed to settle the case for $1 million to be used as funding for beneficial environmental projects.
Latest Update: In 2019, Formosa agreed to settle the case for $50 million, which will be funneled back into the community to fund education, research and conservation initiatives along the Texas Gulf Coast.
Ongoing
2Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat v. US Army Corps of Engineers, December 2021: lawsuit under Clean Water Act and other federal statutes based on authorization of operations that could result in plastics being introduced into the waterways Read more »
Latest Update: On February 1, 2024, the plaintiffs filed their Fourth Amended Complaint (with 2 claims; down from 9 in the Third Amended Complaint). The plaintiffs’ only remaining claims are for violation of the Clean Water Act and Administrative Procedure Act. The defendants filed an answer in April 2024.
Washington
Latest Update: On October 10, 2024, the plaintiffs dismissed the case with prejudice. The parties had not yet briefed any motions on the merits.
Latest Update: Procter & Gamble did not move to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint.
In June 2025, the parties settled the case on unknown terms and conditions.
Latest Update: In September 2023, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint without leave to amend for failure to plead scienter. In September 2024, the Second Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the complaint.
Latest Update: On October 15, the plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint. On November 12, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was set for February 28, 2025 but reset to a later date.
On April 29, 2025, the Court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ fraud-based consumer protection claims with leave to amend, reasoning that—as to the alleged affirmative misrepresentations—the plaintiffs’ allegations failed to sufficiently plead reliance, and—as to the alleged fraudulent omissions—the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege an unreasonable safety hazard and/or a duty to disclose and actual knowledge. The Court also dismissed the plaintiffs’ breach of warranty and unjust enrichment claims with leave to amend for similar reasons.
Rather than file an amended complaint, on May 20, 2025, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case.
Latest Update: On February 20, 2025, the Court granted in part Philips’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. The Court ruled that Philips’ “BPA free” label is not misleading because it only promises the absence of BPA, not that the products are free from all plastic byproducts. While dismissing several claims, the Court denied the motion as to the plaintiffs’ claim that Philips failed to warn consumers about the potential risks of microplastic exposure. On March 19, Philips moved for interlocutory appeal of the Court’s order on its motion to dismiss.
On March 13, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint. On March 27, Philips filed its answer.
On March 19, 2025, Philips filed a motion to certify the Court’s order on its motion to dismiss for interlocutory appeal. On April 28, the Court denied Philips’ motion, and on May 27, the parties stipulated to a dismissal of the case.
Latest Update: On January 6, 2025, Exxon filed a defamation lawsuit against California Attorney General Rob Bonta based on its “repeatedly and publicly attacking ExxonMobil with false accusations of being a ‘liar’ and declarations that advanced recycling is a ‘myth’ and a ‘sham.’”
Following service of the Complaint, the Court granted an extension of time to answer the complaint until April 25, 2025.
Latest Update: The parties completed briefing on class certification on September 3, 2025. The court has not issued an order on class certification, as of December 2, 2025.
Pennsylvania
Latest Update: On October 27, 2025, Defendants removed the case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Latest Update: The case is currently stayed pending mediation.
Latest Update: On March 18, the Court denied Danone’s motion to dismiss finding that (1) the claims are not preempted by federal law, and (2) the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the phrase “natural spring water” could be deceptive given the presence of microplastics.
On August 19, 2025, the parties informed the Court that they reached a settlement and the case was thereafter dismissed.
Latest Update: On October 1, Just Goods filed an answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint. Just Goods did not file a motion to dismiss.
Latest Update: On October 27, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that no reasonable consumer would understand the term “plastic free” to mean that they do not include trace levels of microplastics. The motion has not yet been set for hearing.
Latest Update: On August 19, following mediation, the plaintiff filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal with prejudice.
Latest Update: On September 17, before the Court ruled on the defendant’s motion to dismiss, the parties stipulated to stay the case pending resolution efforts.
