Judge dismisses key claims in Baltimore microplastics lawsuit

Listen to this article

A Baltimore judge dismissed several claims against multiple defendants in the city’s lawsuit surrounding the manufacture and sale of single-use plastics. 

The city’s claim alleged that the defendants’ sale of certain plastics negatively impacted the health of Baltimore residents and interfered with the city’s rights. PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Frito-Lay and several plastic-manufacturing companies are among the defendants. 

The complaint cites a 2019 study that found humans ingest microplastics, which can negatively affect several bodily systems. The city described in length the environmental and societal consequences of plastic pollution in Baltimore and linked the use of single-use plastics to this problem. 

The city also claimed that plastic production and pollution hurt the real estate market and, in turn, costs the government lost tax revenue. The plaintiff also alleged that the city’s rights were interfered with due to contaminated soil and groundwater.  

Defendants Polymershapes, Mercury Plastics and W.R. Grace all successfully filed motions to dismiss on the grounds that they were not involved in the manufacture, sale or distribution of single-use plastics specifically outlined by the city. 

Polymershapes argued that the plaintiff misidentified the company as being based in Baltimore. Mercury alleged that the plaintiff arbitrarily grouped it with other defendants despite lacking evidence that the company produced single-use plastics. And W.R. Grace’s lawyers stated that the company “does not make plastics of any kind, let alone the single-use plastics on which the City’s liability theories rest.” 

The court agreed and granted each motion to dismiss.  

Judge Audrey Carrion wrote, “the Plaintiff fails to detail any actions taken by these aforementioned parties that indicate their responsibility for causing single-use plastic waste.” 

The court also dismissed with prejudice the plaintiff’s claims that the defendants violated consumer protection law, arguing that the city did not demonstrate individual harm to consumers nor to itself.  

The defense successfully argued that “a plaintiff must suffer an identifiable loss … as a result of his or her reliance on the sellers’ misrepresentation or other wrongful conduct.”

Additionally, the court dismissed with prejudice claims of deceptive trade practice, negligence and other related claims.

A public nuisance claim was stayed for defendants PepsiCo, Frito-Lay, Frito-Lay North America and Coca-Cola pending a case recently granted cert by the Maryland Supreme Court. The judge dismissed all other claims against those entities.

The Maryland Supreme Court will address in a separate case whether Maryland law precludes nuisance claims stemming from the widespread sale of a legal product. That case, brought by Baltimore City, Anne Arundel County and Annapolis against BP, will have bearing on PepsiCo, informing the judge’s decision to stay the case despite the defendants moving to continue.