Los Angeles County sues Pepsi and Coca-Cola over plastic bottles

LOS ANGELES — Los Angeles County is competing with Pepsi and Coke for a role in plastic pollution.

In the lawsuit filed Wednesday, the district alleges that PepsiCo and Coca-Cola misled the public about the recyclability of their plastic bottles and downplayed the negative environmental and health impacts of plastic recycling.

“Coke and Pepsi must stop the deception and take responsibility for the plastic pollution problems your products are causing,” Los Angeles County Supervisor Lindsay Horvath said in a statement. “Los Angeles County will continue to address the serious environmental impacts caused by companies engaging in deceptive and unfair business practices.”

Coca-Cola owns brands such as Dasani, Fanta, Sprite, Vitamin Water and Smartwater, while PepsiCo owns Gatorade, Aquafina, Mountain Dew and others. According to global environmental group Break Free From Plastic, the two companies have been the world’s number one plastic polluter for five years in a row, with Coca-Cola ranked number one for six years.

According to Break Free from Plastic, PepsiCo produces about 2.5 million tons of plastic and Coca-Cola produces about 3.224 million tons of plastic per year.

European Union consumer rights group and environmental groups filed a legal complaint against Coca-Cola, Nestle and Danone last November, accusing them of being misleading when they market packaging as 100% recycled or 100% recyclable.

The Los Angeles lawsuit says Coca-Cola and PepsiCo conducted “misinformation campaigns” to trick consumers into buying single-use plastics under the belief that they were recyclable and less harmful to the environment.

It claimed that both companies promised to create a “circular economy” for their bottles, in which plastic bottles could be recycled and reused an infinite number of times, when in reality plastic bottles can only be recycled once, if at all.

The American Beverage Association, which includes PepsiCo and Coca-Cola, denied allegations made in the lawsuit regarding their plastic bottle recycling labels.

“Claims that our packaging is not and will not be recycled are simply not true,” group spokesman William Dermody said in a statement.

Dermody said California had a 71% bottle recycling rate in 2023, one of the highest rates in the country, and that its bottles are “designed to be recycled and recycled and can include up to 100% recycled plastic.”

In 2022 alone, an estimated 121,324 to 179,656 tons of plastic waste spilled onto land and ocean in California, and plastics make up seven of the top 10 litter items found on beaches, the lawsuit says.

Much of the problem is microplastic.

Plastics released into the environment eventually break down into tiny pieces of plastic measuring five millimeters or less. They can affect soil and plant growth, marine and fish life, and are virtually impossible to remove from the environment, the lawsuit says.

Some Australian researchers on behalf of the World Wildlife Fund estimated in 2019 that many people consume approximately 5 grams of plastic each week from conventional food and drink, and microplastics have been found in body tissues and organs. While research remains limited overall, there are growing concerns that microplastics in the body could potentially be linked to heart diseaseAlzheimer’s disease and dementia and other problems.

The lawsuit seeks a court order to stop the companies’ “unfair and deceptive business practices,” as well as consumer damages and civil penalties of up to $2,500 per violation.

In February 2020, environmental nonprofit Earth Island Institute filed a lawsuit in California seeking damages and injunctive relief against Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Nestle USA, and Procter. & Gamble and six other companies are cleaning up the plastic waste they should be held accountable for.

New York State also sued PepsiCo last November for his role in creating plastic waste that clogs the Buffalo River, which flows into Lake Erie and supplies the city with drinking water. A judge dismissed the case Thursday, saying in a court document that there was no “failure to warn” the public about the dangers of plastic and that there was no basis for a claim to punish the companies for the actions of a third party – the people who litter.