Who gains from saving nature
Ledger 1 : 33 — For each dollar financing nature-based solutions in 2023, about $33 financed activities harmful to nature. (UNEP)
Cases / Plastic waste and recycling claims · United States · 2024

New York v PepsiCo and LA County v PepsiCo/Coca-Cola

Nature's voice · report
No measurement of the harm done to me here is on record.
Did nature suffer? Not measured. Disputed
Not on record
  • The record does not name which of my species, waters, soils or forests were harmed.
What the record lacks: 1 none on record · 1 not measured · 1 disputed · 2 unclear See the gaps
Accounts of the harm differ
Who is responsible for the plastic in the Buffalo River?
  • Courts New York judge: Dismissed the State's suit on the ground that the polluters were others, not the company (as reported by Reuters). Nasdaq / Reuters
  • Government and regulators New York attorney general's office: Appealed the dismissal. Nasdaq / Reuters

The State of New York sued PepsiCo over plastic pollution in the Buffalo River; a judge dismissed the suit in 2024 and the attorney general's office appealed. Los Angeles County sued PepsiCo and Coca-Cola over recyclability claims.

Coca-Cola 11%, PepsiCo 5%Share of branded plastic waste in a 84-country brand audit
Break Free From Plastic audits, 1,576 events 2018–2022 (Cowger et al. 2024).

Status As of November 2024: the New York suit was dismissed and appealed; the Los Angeles County suit had been filed.

What?
Suits by New York State (Buffalo River) and Los Angeles County over plastic pollution and recyclability claims. Nasdaq / Reuters
Where?
Buffalo River, New York State; Los Angeles County, California. Nasdaq / Reuters
When?
Los Angeles County suit October 2024; New York dismissal reported November 2024. Nasdaq / Reuters
Who?
Gained
None on record
Lost
None on record
Harmed
None on record
Why?
Los Angeles County alleged misleading recyclability claims and public harm; the New York suit concerned plastic pollution of the Buffalo River. Insurance Journal
How?
Brand audits attribute 11% of branded plastic waste to Coca-Cola and 5% to PepsiCo. Science Advances
5 of 6 questions answered from the record · open: who

What happened

The record, in order.

In 2024 the State of New York brought a suit against PepsiCo over plastic pollution of the Buffalo River. According to Reuters, as carried by Nasdaq in November 2024, a judge dismissed the suit on the ground that the polluters were others, not the company. The attorney general's office appealed.

In October 2024 Los Angeles County sued PepsiCo and Coca-Cola, alleging that they misled consumers about recyclability and caused public harm, according to Insurance Journal.

Both companies appear at the top of brand audits of plastic waste. A 2024 analysis in Science Advances of 1,576 audit events in 84 countries between 2018 and 2022 attributed 11% of branded waste to Coca-Cola and 5% to PepsiCo; 56 companies accounted for more than half of branded waste, and half of the items were unbranded.

  1. 2018Start of the brand-audit period analysed in Cowger et al. 2024 (to 2022).
  2. 2024Los Angeles County sues PepsiCo and Coca-Cola (October); a New York judge dismisses the State's Buffalo River suit against PepsiCo and the attorney general's office appeals (November).

What was said

Claims, in the words of those who made them.

“The top global plastic polluters of 2023 are The Coca-Cola Company, Nestlé, Unilever, PepsiCo, Mondelēz International.”

Where accounts differ

Each party's account, side by side, with its source. The record does not settle these points; it shows them.

Who is responsible for the plastic in the Buffalo River?
Courts
New York judge

Dismissed the State's suit on the ground that the polluters were others, not the company (as reported by Reuters).

Nasdaq / Reuters
Government and regulators
New York attorney general's office

Appealed the dismissal.

Nasdaq / Reuters

How it looked

What was shown, beside what was recorded.

Shown

    Recorded

    • Brand audits: 1,576 audit events in 84 countries, 2018–2022. Coca-Cola 11%, PepsiCo 5%, Nestlé 3%, Danone 3%, Altria 2% of branded waste.
      Science Advances
    • 56 companies account for more than 50% of branded waste; 50% of items were unbranded. Each 1% of production share corresponded to about 1% of pollution share.
      Science Advances
    • Oregon EPR: average fee 17–23 cents per lb; the operating organisation, Circular Action Alliance, has Coca-Cola and PepsiCo on its board, chaired by Keurig Dr Pepper; the fee methodology is confidential and there is no appeal mechanism (June 2025).
      Ballard Spahr

    In court and with insurers

    Every proceeding and every insurer decision on record.

    Lawsuits and rulings

    1. 2024Dismissed
      State of New York v PepsiCo (Buffalo River)
      New York court (not named in the material read) · Civil · State of New York → PepsiCo

      A judge dismissed the suit on the ground that others, not the company, were the polluters. The attorney general's office appealed. Nasdaq / Reuters

    2. 2024-10–Outcome not on record
      Los Angeles County v PepsiCo and Coca-Cola
      Not named in the material read · Civil · Los Angeles County → PepsiCo; The Coca-Cola Company

      The county sued over alleged misleading of consumers on recyclability and public harm. Insurance Journal

    Insurers

    No insurer decision on record.

    What nature saw

    Outcomes measured on the ground, and nature's note.

    Nature's report opens this page. Below: further outcomes measured on the ground.

    Coca-Cola share of branded plastic waste
    11%
    Brand audits, 84 countries, 2018–2022
    PepsiCo share of branded plastic waste
    5%
    Same audits
    Companies behind more than half of branded waste
    56
    Same audits

    What we don't know

    Undisclosed, unproven, untried: recorded as data.
    Case pending / contestedNo independent ecological evaluation

    Nature

    • Not measured Harm to nature: No independent ecological evaluation is on record.
    • Disputed Who is responsible for the plastic in the Buffalo River?

    Court

    • Unclear Los Angeles County v PepsiCo and Coca-Cola: outcome not on record.

    Record

    • None on record Full text of the New York judge's reasoning: not in the material read; only the reported ground that others, not the company, were the polluters.
    • Unclear Outcome of the New York appeal and of the Los Angeles County suit: no ruling in the material read.

    Did the harm stop?

    Not stated in the material read.

    Who paid?

    Not established in the material read.

    Sources

    Voices on record: — Company or project— Government and regulators— Courts✓ Press and investigations✓ Communities and civil society✓ Researchers

    Press and investigations

    Communities and civil society

    1. BFFP movement unveils 2023 global brand audit results
      Break Free From Plastic · 2024-02-07

    Researchers

    Connected cases

    Related matters, and cases linked to this one through the same organisations, with the role each played in both.
    Similar cases
    Plastic waste and recycling claims · Chemical pollution · Water use · United States · 2021–2026
    California v. ExxonMobil: plastics recycling claims and the Baytown plant
    Same type: Plastic waste and recycling claimsSame countryHarm to nature not measured
    Plastic waste and recycling claims · Chemical pollution · United States · 1970–2026
    Plastic recycling symbol, resin codes and “advanced recycling” claims (United States)
    Same type: Plastic waste and recycling claimsSame countryHarm to nature not measured