MANHATTAN (CN) — A New York judge blasted state Attorney General Letitia James’ pollution lawsuit against PepsiCo as “predatory” in his ruling to dismiss the state’s 2023 complaint, which targeted the beverage giant’s supposed role in the pollution of the Buffalo River.
The attorney general’s office conducted a study which found that more than 17% of the trash in the Buffalo River came from PepsiCo products. By its count, the next highest contributor was McDonald’s at 6%.
But New York Supreme Court Justice Emitio Colaiacovo found that James ultimately failed to show that PepsiCo should have warned customers about the risks of the plastics found in its packaging, ruling that company had “no duty” to do so.
“There is no duty to warn of an obvious danger of which the product user is actually aware or should be aware as a result of ordinary observation or as a matter of common sense,” Colaiacovo wrote in a 19-page decision.
James brought the suit last November, claiming that PepsiCo’s use of plastic packaging contributes to an exorbitant amount of pollution in Upstate New York waterways. In a 39-page complaint filed in Erie County, she accused PepsiCo of failing to inform consumers about the risks of single-use plastics and even deceiving the public about the company’s efforts to fight waste.
“PepsiCo has failed to abate the harm or warn the public that its plastic packaging is a potential source of plastic pollution and presents a risk of harm to human health and the environment,” James claimed in the suit. “Instead, it has misled the public about its efforts to combat plastic pollution, while increasing its production and sale of single-use plastic packaging.”
Colaiacovo said in the ruling dated Thursday, but filed to the Erie County docket on Friday, that since it is the consumer who litters rather than the manufacturer itself, then it would run “contrary to every norm of established jurisprudence” to punish PepsiCo for the act of their product ending up in the Buffalo River.
“It is not difficult to imagine the lengths prosecuting agencies would take this theory, if adopted, to punish manufacturers for the acts of others who buy their products and then, throw them in a nearby body of water,” Colaiacovo wrote.
The Republican judge took it one step further, accusing James of merely “searching for a crime” in her legal pursuit of PepsiCo, which operates food and drink brands from Quaker Oats to Doritos and Lay’s.
“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. “This is a purely legislative or executive function to ameliorate and the judicial system should not be burdened with predatory lawsuits that seek to impose punishment while searching for a crime.”
A spokesperson for James’ office didn’t indicate whether they would appeal Colaiacovo’s ruling, only that they were “disappointed” with the case’s dismissal.
“Plastic pollution poses a major threat to our planet and our public health,” the spokesperson told Courthouse News. “We are disappointed in this decision and are reviewing our options but remain committed to protecting communities from the dangers of plastic pollution.”
A PepsiCo spokesperson told Courthouse News that they are “pleased with the court’s ruling.”
“For our part, PepsiCo remains serious about plastic reduction and effective recycling,” the spokesperson said in a statement. “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.”
Colaiacovo’s decision came just a day after a strikingly similar lawsuit — this time against both Coca-Cola and PepsiCo — was filed by Los Angeles County. In that claim, the county accuses both drink titans of deliberately misleading Californians about how their products can be recycled.