Coca-Cola and PepsiCo are facing a coordinated wave of plastic waste lawsuits brought by state and local governments, a U.S. territory, and environmental nonprofits, most of them arguing that the companies deceived consumers about how recyclable their single-use bottles really are and created a public nuisance through the resulting pollution. The cases have produced sharply different early rulings, and the first full trial is scheduled for October 2027 in Los Angeles.
Los Angeles County v. PepsiCo and Coca-Cola
On October 30, 2024, Los Angeles County Counsel Dawyn R. Harrison filed a complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court against PepsiCo, Inc., Pepsi Bottling Ventures LLC, The Coca-Cola Company, and Reyes Coca-Cola Bottling, LLC.1LA County. LA County Sues Pepsi and Coca-Cola Over Plastic Beverage Pollution and Deceiving Public on Plastic Recycling The case, No. 24STCV28450, rests on three theories: public nuisance under California Code of Civil Procedure ยง 731, the state’s Unfair Competition Law, and its False Advertising Law.2Climate Case Chart. People v. PepsiCo, Inc.
The complaint calls the two companies the world’s top plastic polluters and alleges a “disinformation campaign” promoting single-use bottles as environmentally responsible. It says PepsiCo produces roughly 2.5 million metric tons of plastic annually and Coca-Cola about 3.2 million metric tons, and that both promoted a “circular economy” for bottles while knowing plastic bottles can typically be recycled only once, if at all. The county also challenges “chemical” or “advanced” recycling, alleging only 1 to 14 percent of plastic processed through these methods becomes new plastic.3State Impact Center. Filed Plastics Complaint Against PepsiCo and Coke
The county is seeking an injunction against the alleged deceptive marketing, restitution to consumers, abatement of the public nuisance, and civil penalties of up to $2,500 per violation.1LA County. LA County Sues Pepsi and Coca-Cola Over Plastic Beverage Pollution and Deceiving Public on Plastic Recycling Motley Rice LLC, a firm long involved in mass tort litigation, is serving as co-counsel.3State Impact Center. Filed Plastics Complaint Against PepsiCo and Coke
Coca-Cola removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in December 2024, then withdrew that removal, and the federal court remanded to state court on March 14, 2025.4Truth in Advertising. California v. PepsiCo Remand Trial is set to begin October 4, 2027, with a final status conference on September 20, 2027.5Plastics Litigation Tracker. Plastics Litigation Tracker
New York’s Dismissal and Pending Appeal
New York Attorney General Letitia James had already tried a similar theory against PepsiCo. Her office sued in Erie County in November 2023, alleging that PepsiCo’s plastic waste was a public nuisance in the Buffalo River and citing a state study finding more than 17 percent of trash in the river came from PepsiCo products.6Courthouse News Service. New York Judge Drops Massive Pollution Lawsuit Against PepsiCo Brought by State
On October 31, 2024, New York Supreme Court Justice Emilio Colaiacovo dismissed the case in full. He held that PepsiCo could not be liable for the independent actions of consumers who litter, writing that imposing such liability “seems contrary to every norm of established jurisprudence.” He found no duty to warn consumers about improper disposal, called PepsiCo’s public statements about reducing plastic “aspirational goals” rather than actionable misrepresentations, and ruled that environmental policy belongs to the legislative and executive branches.7NY Courts. People v PepsiCo, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 24280
PepsiCo’s vice president of global corporate communications, Andrea Foote, said the company was “pleased with the court’s ruling” and that resources are “best directed toward collaborative solutions.”8Packaging Dive. PepsiCo Plastic Pollution Lawsuits James filed a notice of appeal on December 9, 2024, and the appeal is still pending.9E&E News. New York AG Appeals Plastic Litter Ruling Siding With Pepsi
Baltimore’s Case Survives, In Part
In June 2024, Baltimore sued PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Frito-Lay, and several plastics manufacturers in Baltimore City Circuit Court, alleging that plastic pollution contaminates the harbor and drinking water and costs the city more than $32 million a year to collect over 2,600 tons of litter. The complaint brought 14 counts, including public nuisance, violations of Maryland’s illegal dumping and consumer protection laws, continuing trespass, strict liability for design defects, and negligence.10State Impact Center. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. PepsiCo
Ruling on motions to dismiss, the court rejected the defense argument that the companies cannot be liable because they don’t control the products after they’re sold, noting Maryland law does not require control over the alleged nuisance to establish liability for creating it.11Kanner Law. Court Stays Decision on City of Baltimore’s Plastic Nuisance Claim but Notes Support Under Prevailing Maryland Law Some other claims were dismissed, and the public nuisance ruling was stayed pending a related Maryland Supreme Court case on climate tort claims against fossil fuel companies. In March 2026 the court ordered fresh briefing on the nuisance claim; no decision had issued as of mid-2026.5Plastics Litigation Tracker. Plastics Litigation Tracker
U.S. Virgin Islands
The U.S. Virgin Islands government sued Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and their local affiliates in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands on April 11, 2025, alleging violations of the Consumer Protection Law of 1973 and the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and public nuisance. The complaint calls the companies’ recycling messaging “mostly theater” and seeks injunctive relief, civil penalties, disgorgement, and cleanup funding.12Climate Case Chart. Commissioner of the Department of Licensing Consumer Affairs v. PepsiCo, Inc.13WTJX News. VI Government Sues Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Local Affiliates Over Plastic Pollution, Deceptive Practices
PepsiCo removed the case to federal court in May 2025. In March 2026, Chief Judge Robert A. Molloy of the District Court of the Virgin Islands granted the plaintiffs’ motion to remand, finding no basis for federal jurisdiction and rejecting the argument that references to federal consent decrees governing two USVI landfills created a federal question.14District Court of the Virgin Islands. PepsiCo Remand Opinion The case is now back in territorial court.
Earth Island Institute’s Two Tracks
The nonprofit Earth Island Institute has pursued Coca-Cola on two fronts. In San Mateo County Superior Court, it sued Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Procter & Gamble, and other consumer goods companies in 2020 under California’s Unfair Competition Law and public nuisance. After four years of procedural fights, Judge V. Raymond Swope denied the defendants’ demurrers in July 2024, ruling that the complaint adequately alleged the companies could be held liable for marketing products as recyclable while knowing recycling was “difficult if not impossible.” The case is heading toward trial.15Earth Island. Court Greenlights Landmark Plastic Pollution Lawsuit Against Procter & Gamble, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Major Consumer Goods Companies
In the District of Columbia, Earth Island alleged in 2021 that Coca-Cola violated the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act through greenwashing. The D.C. Superior Court dismissed the case in November 2022, treating the sustainability statements as “aspirational.” The D.C. Court of Appeals reversed in August 2024, finding the claims “facially plausible” and rejecting Coca-Cola’s First Amendment defense.16DC Courts. Earth Island Institute v. Coca-Cola, 22-CV-0895 The appellate court specifically rejected the argument that pledges like making 100 percent of packaging recyclable by 2025 and using 50 percent recycled material by 2030 were mere puffery.17Climate Case Chart. Earth Island Institute v. Coca-Cola Co.
Pledges Versus Performance
The gap between the companies’ public sustainability commitments and their actual output runs through most of these complaints. Globally, about 9 percent of all plastics are recycled. Audits cited in several filings put Coca-Cola at roughly 11 percent of all branded plastic pollution worldwide and PepsiCo at about 5 percent.18CBC News. Plastic Study Canada
Both companies have repeatedly revised their targets. In December 2024, Coca-Cola replaced its 2025 and 2030 goals with new 2035 targets of 35 to 40 percent recycled content in primary packaging and 70 to 75 percent collection of bottles and cans sold. As of its most recent disclosures, the company was behind on recycled content and collection, its virgin plastic use was up roughly 6 percent since 2019, and only 1.2 percent of its plastic packaging was reusable in 2023.19Packaging Dive. Coca-Cola New Packaging Sustainability Goals 2035 PepsiCo overhauled its own strategy in May 2025, dropping its target of selling 20 percent of beverages through reusable systems by 2030, cutting its recycled-content goal from 50 percent by 2030 to 40 percent by 2035, and replacing a 20 percent virgin plastic reduction goal with a target of 2 percent annual cuts.20Packaging Dive. PepsiCo Sustainability Goal Revamp Using 2022 data, Oceana reported Coca-Cola’s plastic packaging use had increased by more than 6 percent to 3.43 million metric tons and PepsiCo’s had risen 4 percent to 2.6 million metric tons.21Oceana. Oceana: Coca-Cola and Pepsi’s Plastic Packaging Use Increases by Hundreds of Millions of Pounds
Where the Wider Plastics Litigation Stands
The Coca-Cola and PepsiCo cases sit inside a much larger legal push. In September 2024, California Attorney General Rob Bonta sued ExxonMobil, the world’s largest producer of polymers used in single-use plastics, alleging a decades-long deception campaign about recycling. The complaint cites internal documents, including a 1994 meeting record in which an Exxon Chemical vice president said, “We are committed to the activities, but not committed to the results.” California is seeking an abatement fund, disgorgement, and civil penalties.22Office of the California Attorney General. Attorney General Bonta Sues ExxonMobil for Deceiving Public on Recyclability of Plastic In September 2025, a federal judge in Northern California allowed a related Sierra Club public nuisance claim against ExxonMobil to proceed, finding it plausible that Exxon’s promotion of single-use plastics as safely disposable was a “substantial factor” in the state’s plastic pollution.23Climate Case Chart. Sierra Club v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
Other government actions include Connecticut’s 2022 case against Reynolds Consumer Products over Hefty trash bags marketed as “recyclable,” set for trial in May 2026, and a Minnesota settlement in which two retailers agreed to stop selling bags labeled “recycling bags” and pay $216,670 in costs and disgorged profits.5Plastics Litigation Tracker. Plastics Litigation Tracker Legislatures have moved in parallel. Several states have enacted Extended Producer Responsibility laws, with Oregon’s first producer fees due by July 2025 and Colorado’s by January 2026, and California has mandated that all product packaging be recyclable or compostable by 2032.24Bloomberg Law. Pepsi, Coke Suits Signal Heightened Angst Over Plastic Bottles
Industry observers have compared this wave to earlier tobacco and opioid litigation, pointing to the shared strategy of framing corporate conduct as a public nuisance, spotlighting alleged disinformation, and seeking abatement funds rather than individual damages. The presence of firms like Motley Rice, central to tobacco litigation, reinforces the parallel.25Swiss Re. Plastics: New Wave of Litigation How far the comparison holds will depend on whether courts accept public nuisance theories for lawfully sold products and whether the science on microplastics can support the kind of direct health causation that carried those earlier cases. The New York dismissal showed how skeptical some courts remain; the Baltimore, California, D.C., and ExxonMobil rulings show others are willing to let these theories go forward. The Los Angeles trial in October 2027 is likely to produce the first full judicial answer.