Coca-Cola and Pepsi Sued by US Virgin Islands for Misleading Recycling Claims
The government of the U.S. Virgin Islands has launched a lawsuit against Coca-Cola and PepsiCo, alleging that the companies have misled consumers with their recycling claims. According to the lawsuit, the companies have claimed that their plastic bottles are recyclable, when in fact they are single-use and have overwhelmed the islands’ waste management systems and environment.
As Newsweek reports, the lawsuit claims that Coca-Cola and PepsiCo have promoted misleading messages about the recyclability of their plastic bottles, while continuing to market and sell products that create an unmanageable waste situation on the islands. The Virgin Islands accuse the companies of spending an insufficient amount on countering pollution, citing that in 2019, the companies invested $4.24 billion in marketing and advertisements, but only $11 million in their river-cleaning project.
The lawsuit is intensifying the legal focus on global brands and their responsibility for plastic pollution, particularly in island territories where waste management infrastructure is limited. The outcome of the lawsuit could have major implications for how multinational corporations communicate environmental claims about their products and for efforts to reduce single-use plastic waste in the United States and globally.
Patrick Boyle, corporate accountability attorney for the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), told Newsweek: “These suits mark the beginning of our collective reckoning with a destructive and unsustainable business model. Companies that profit from plastic pollution must be held accountable for its costs.” Boyle also stated that “cases like this highlight the tremendous burden that single-use plastics place on governments and the public. For a generation, industry has created and perpetuated a myth that plastics are recyclable to stall meaningful action on pollution and unchecked production.”
The complaint against Coca-Cola and PepsiCo states that “PepsiCo and Coca-Cola—the top plastic polluters in the world—have littered the Virgin Islands with their plastic bottles and engaged in a disinformation campaign to make consumers falsely believe that purchasing their products in single-use plastic bottles is an environmentally responsible choice.” Los Angeles County Counsel Dawyn R. Harrison also commented on the issue, stating that “the goal of this lawsuit is to stop the unfair and illegal conduct, to address the marketing practices that deceive consumers, and to force these businesses to change their practices to reduce the plastic pollution problem in the County and in California.”
This is not the first time the companies have been sued over alleged misleading recycling claims. In 2024, Los Angeles sued Coca-Cola and PepsiCo over their plastic bottles, saying the companies had engaged in “disinformation campaigns.” The plaintiffs in Los Angeles claimed that the soda companies were claiming that the bottles were continuously recyclable, when in reality, plastic bottles can be recycled once, if at all.
The lawsuit filed by the Virgin Islands is seeking monetary compensation and for the companies to pay to clean up the pollution caused by their bottles. The Los Angeles case is expected to go to court before the Virgin Islands case, and the decision made in California could impact the direction of the Virgin Islands suit.
As the world’s top plastic producers, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo collectively own dozens of beverage brands, including Coke, Pepsi, Dasani, Smartwater, Fanta, Aquafina, Gatorade, 7-Up, Sprite, Vitamin Water, and Mountain Dew. The two companies have ranked as the world’s top plastic producers for the past five years, as of 2024.
The lawsuit highlights the specific vulnerabilities of small island communities, especially ones that rely heavily on environmental tourism, to plastic pollution. It establishes a legal test for holding manufacturers accountable outside the U.S. mainland and serves as a reminder of the need for companies to take responsibility for their environmental impact.
Source link
