California says Exxon's recycling claims created a 'public nuisance.' What does that mean?
By Brendan Pierson
Sept 25 (Reuters) -California's lawsuit on Monday accusing Exxon XOM.N of fueling global plastic waste pollution by misleading the public about the limitations of recycling is the latest in a line of recent cases based on a centuries-old legal theory known as public nuisance. Here is a look at how public nuisance claims work, how such claims have fared and what it might mean for California's effort.
WHAT IS PUBLIC NUISANCE?
A public nuisance claim is one that can be brought against defendants based on behavior that interferes with a right that belongs to the general public, rather than to an individual. Frequently cited examples include an obstacle blocking a public road, pollution in a public waterway or a factory that emits a noxious gas.
Unlike personal injury cases, public nuisance cases, which are often brought by local governments, do not seek damages to compensate plaintiffs for an injury. Instead, they seek to make the party responsible for the nuisance pay to abate, or fix, the condition. The amount of money the defendant must pay depends on the cost of abatement.
HOW DOES CALIFORNIA'S LAWSUIT FIT IN?
California's case is one of many recent lawsuits that try to apply the concept of public nuisance more broadly than it has been used historically. Rather than accusing Exxon of directly polluting public land or water, the state says the company deceived the public for decades into believing plastic recycling was much more effective than it is, encouraging a widespread "throw away lifestyle" of disposable plastic products.
The state says that, in turn, led to more widespread plastic pollution, which can be traced directly to Exxon's conduct. It is seeking to make Exxon pay the cost of abating the pollution, with the amount yet to be determined.
Exxon has denied the allegations, arguing that recycling works and that California itself failed to correct problems in its recycling system.
California and others have previously used a similar theory in suing Exxon and other oil companies for allegedly covering up their own knowledge about fossil fuels and climate change. Many of those have been tied up for years in legal battles over which courts have jurisdiction to hear them.
HOW HAVE OTHER RECENT PUBLIC NUISANCE LAWSUITS FARED?
Many recent public nuisance lawsuits have not been tested at trial, but some have ended in large settlements. Notably, opioid drug manufacturers, distributors and pharmacies have settled with state and local governments nationwide for close to $50 billion over claims they fueled an epidemic of addiction and overdose deaths.
However, a federal judge rejected public nuisance claims in one opioid case, brought by a West Virginia city and county, that did go to trial. The case is currently on appeal.
Broad public nuisance claims have had some success in California. San Francisco won its public nuisance opioid case against Walgreens WBA.O, which then agreed to settle for $230 million last year rather than pursue an appeal.
The state's highest court in 1997 ruled that gang activity could be a public nuisance, and in 2017 ruled that three companies had created a public nuisance with lead paint used throughout the state and must pay to abate it.
There are limits, however; a state court judge in June rejected public nuisance claims by school districts accusing social media companies of encouraging addiction among their students.
HAVE ANY SIMILAR LAWSUITS BEEN FILED OVER PLASTIC POLLUTION?
Yes. New York last year brought a public nuisance lawsuit accusing PepsiCo PEP.O of fueling plastic pollution with its single-use plastic bottles, caps and wrappers. U.S. environmental group Earth Island Institute in 2020 brought similar claims against Pepsi and others including Coca-Cola KO.N and Nestle NESN.S, which a judge earlier this year allowed to go forward. The lawsuits remain pending.
CAN CALIFORNIA'S LAWSUIT GO FORWARD IF THE COURT REJECTS THE PUBLIC NUISANCE THEORY?
Yes. In addition to its public nuisance claim, California is bringing claims under the state's unfair business practices, false advertising and environmental pollution laws. Even without a public nuisance claim, the lawsuit could bring in significant damages if successful.
Reporting by Brendan Pierson in New York; Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Daniel Wallis
免责声明: XM Group仅提供在线交易平台的执行服务和访问权限，并允许个人查看和/或使用网站或网站所提供的内容，但无意进行任何更改或扩展，也不会更改或扩展其服务和访问权限。所有访问和使用权限，将受下列条款与条例约束：(i) 条款与条例；(ii) 风险提示；以及(iii) 完整免责声明。请注意，网站所提供的所有讯息，仅限一般资讯用途。此外，XM所有在线交易平台的内容并不构成，也不能被用于任何未经授权的金融市场交易邀约和/或邀请。金融市场交易对于您的投资资本含有重大风险。
所有在线交易平台所发布的资料，仅适用于教育/资讯类用途，不包含也不应被视为用于金融、投资税或交易相关咨询和建议，或是交易价格纪录，或是任何金融商品或非应邀途径的金融相关优惠的交易邀约或邀请。
本网站上由XM和第三方供应商所提供的所有内容，包括意见、新闻、研究、分析、价格、其他资讯和第三方网站链接，皆保持不变，并作为一般市场评论所提供，而非投资性建议。所有在线交易平台所发布的资料，仅适用于教育/资讯类用途，不包含也不应被视为适用于金融、投资税或交易相关咨询和建议，或是交易价格纪录，或是任何金融商品或非应邀途径的金融相关优惠的交易邀约或邀请。请确保您已阅读并完全理解，XM非独立投资研究提示和风险提示相关资讯，更多详情请点击 这里。
