(The Center Square) — A New York State judge has tossed out a lawsuit against PepsiCo that sought to hold the company accountable for plastic pollution in the Buffalo River and chided Democratic Attorney General Leticia James for “policy idealism” by filing the legal challenge.
The ruling by New York Supreme Court Justice Emilio Colaiacovo sided with the beverage giant’s argument that it couldn’t be held responsible for polluting the river, as it was consumers who tossed away the plastic bottles and other trash into the water body.
James filed the lawsuit against Pepsi and FritoLay last year, alleging that the company was “jeopardising the environment and public health” by producing large numbers of single-use plastic containers. The legal challenge focused on pollution in New York’s Buffalo River, which is used as a source of drinking water.
Colaiacovo scoffed at James’ allegations as “speculative” and said it would be “contrary to every norm of established jurisprudence” to punish PepsiCo because it was people, not the company, who tossed litter into the river.
“It is important to note that regardless of the defendant’s aspirational goals, Pepsi/Frito Lay did not pollute the Buffalo River or any other local waterways – other people did,” he wrote. “Instead of pursuing those who commit the act, the Attorney General wishes to penalize those who produce the discarded item. This theory has never been adopted by a court in this state or any other.”
James’ lawsuit called for civil penalties and restitution “for the damage inflicted upon New York’s communities and environment.” It also called for a ban on PepsiCo selling or distributing single-use plastic bottled products in the Buffalo region without warning consumers that “the packaging is a potential source of plastic pollution and presents a risk of harm to human health and the environment.”
But Colaiacovo also criticized James for ignoring a 2003 New York Appeals Court’s decision in a lawsuit filed by predecessor, Eliot Spitzer, which declined to hold Sturm Ruger liable for criminals who use its firearms to commit violence. He said James’ legal challenge risks “opening the floodgates” to public nuisance lawsuits.
“While I can think of no reasonable person who does not believe in the imperatives of recycling and being better stewards of our environment, this does not give rise to phantom assertions of liability that do nothing to solve the problem that exists,” Colaiacovo wrote. “The judicial system should not be burdened with predatory lawsuits that seek to impose punishment while searching for a crime.”
In a statement, PepsiCo welcomed the court’s decision and said it is “serious” about expanding recycling efforts and reducing the use of single-use bottles and other plastic products.
“We will continue to collaborate with key partners to advance smart material collection policies, improve recycling infrastructure, boost consumer awareness about the importance of recycling and establish partnerships focused on reducing waste and exploring innovative solutions to plastic pollution,” the company said.
The attorney general’s office said it was “disappointed” by the judge’s ruling and is reviewing its options but remains “committed to protecting communities from the dangers of plastic pollution.”
“Plastic pollution poses a major threat to our planet and our public health,” a James spokesperson said in a statement.
