Baltimore’s attempt to make Coke, Pepsi and other companies pay for the city’s plastic pollution problem has been thrown out, closing another legal avenue in the city’s campaign against corporate-caused harms. The ruling arrives after Maryland’s highest court sharply narrowed how local governments can use public nuisance law.
The city sued seven corporations in June 2024, alleging that single-use bottles, wrappers and other plastic products contributed to litter, microplastics in soil and waterways, public-health risks and economic damage. The Maryland Daily Record reported that Baltimore’s defendants included PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, two Frito-Lay entities, W.R. Grace, Mercury Plastics MD, Adell Plastics and Polymershapes Baltimore.
Baltimore’s original announcement framed the case as an effort to hold manufacturers accountable for products the city said were predictably becoming environmental hazards. Hoodline previously reported that the city accused the companies of creating a public nuisance by distributing single-use plastics while knowing the environmental consequences of improper disposal.
Why The Baltimore Plastic Lawsuit Was Dismissed
Baltimore City Circuit Judge Audrey J.S. Carrión dismissed the remaining public nuisance claims in an order issued last Thursday. She wrote that the city was seeking an “expansion of public nuisance law” to hold companies responsible for consumers misusing lawful products and contaminating streets, waterways and drinking water, according to the Daily Record’s account of the ruling.
The decision followed two Maryland Supreme Court opinions issued in March. In one ruling, the court said the licensed distribution of controlled substances was not an actionable public nuisance and emphasized that Maryland’s traditional doctrine did not recognize government damages claims of this kind. In another opinion, the court rejected Baltimore-area climate claims against oil companies, finding that the local governments were attempting to regulate pollution beyond their jurisdictional boundaries.
PepsiCo’s lawyers called the dismissal a “significant victory,” according to a statement from Weil, the firm representing the company. The firm said the ruling was part of a broader series of court victories challenging public nuisance theories aimed at manufacturers of lawful plastic products.
Mayor Scott Says Baltimore Is Reviewing Its Options
A spokesperson for Mayor Brandon Scott said the city was disappointed by the decision and was evaluating its options going forward. The ruling does not remove plastic waste from Baltimore’s streets, waterways or harbor, but it does make one of the city’s preferred strategies for shifting cleanup costs onto manufacturers substantially harder to pursue.
The plastic case is the latest setback for Baltimore’s affirmative-litigation strategy after the Maryland Supreme Court vacated the city’s $152 million opioid verdict in April. Baltimore dropped that lawsuit afterward but retained hundreds of millions of dollars from pretrial settlements, according to the Daily Record.
For now, the court’s message is clear: Broad public nuisance claims built around the downstream effects of legal products face a steep climb in Maryland. Baltimore can still pursue traditional environmental claims or seek changes through state lawmakers, but the city’s Coke-and-Pepsi lawsuit will not be the vehicle for doing so.
