It seems very strange to attack Coke and Pepsi for this. Shouldn't the target be recycling programs that claim to be recycling plastic bottles, but actually don't?
From the Table of Contents:
A. Defendants created the condition of plastic pollution, which is extraordinarily harmful to humans, animals, and the environment. 22
B. As Defendants have known for decades, recycling by itself cannot prevent plastic pollution from damaging oceans, waterways, and coasts 29
C. Defendants refuse to adopt more sustainable alternatives in order reap higher profits resulting from using virgin plastic. 37
D. Defendants’ decades-long campaign of misinformation about their Products’ recyclability puts the cost of plastic pollution on consumers and public entities. 39
This suit is an awful idea.
There's a difference between (1) trying to speak to someone in a language they understand, and (2) imagining what you think that would be like, doing that without reference to whether it makes any sense, and then congratulating yourself for your penetrating insight. You can't speak to someone in a language that they understand but you don't!
Even if the court decides that you haven't stated a justiciable claim?
* Violating §1770(a)(5,7,9) of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, which is effectively a false advertising law.
* Public nuisance
* Express warranty violation (again, basically "this product doesn't do what you told me it would do")
* Strict liability claims for environment damage (as far as I can make it out)
* Negligence claims for the above as well.
The first and third claims are really, really hard to substantiate because the plaintiffs are arguing on the basis that the claim of "recyclable" should be interpreted as "actually recycled in practice" as opposed to the definition of "recyclable" that appears in regulation... I can't see a judge buying that. I imagine the last two claims will fail due to lack of direct harm--I'm not intimately familiar with California law here, but they're not citing any particular law or precedent to establish why they have standing to sue on the basis of only general public harm. Public nuisance is the only claim I could see standing, but even then, the rather indirect nature is going to make this difficult to sustain.
In short, this appears to me to be more of a "we're suing them to make a statement" kind of case than a "we're suing them because we actually have a legal claim" kind.
How were the labels wrong?
There is nothing in this article and I'm sure your view of all single use products must be biodegradable or recyclable isn't law.
Your theory makes the EPA rather pointless.
I mean, just think about it for a single second, who profit from these things beside big corporations, certainly not me, you or our future descendants.
This is surely the case since nearly every municipality has some program in place. The obvious problem is that these cities aren't actually recycling things while claiming they are -- possibly even requiring people to recycle. It looks to me like cities need to be sued to remove these plastics from the programs. Then 60% wouldn't have access to recycling programs, and then it would be deceptive to label it as recyclable.
Another avenue would be a change by legislation.
For all the outrage, this lawsuit is going nowhere.
And before I'm called a shill: Don't drink Coke. Don't drink Pepsi. Don't drink bottled water.
I'm just a fan of the law being knowable -- oh, and articles having substance.
I agree the lawsuit is unlikely to go anywhere. But many people said the same about the lawsuits against big tobacco. And even if the lawsuit is tossed at the very first opportunity the organization has called attention to some of the worst actors when it comes to plastic production. I'd call that a win.
Either way it's the way our system slowly but sure gets the wheels of progress spinning.
Hustlers that stand on city corners pushing junk flyers onto passers-by, creating a pile of discards 20 feet down the street, are in the same boat.
Paper degrades naturally, and most paper in the West is now produced from sustainable sources. So, paper littering is not as deleterious as plastic that doesn’t get properly recycled.
2) There are five other companies named in TFA (of the ten named in the suit described in TFA)