Business
L.A. County sues Pepsi and Coca-Cola over their role in ongoing plastic pollution crisis
Los Angeles County has filed suit against the world’s largest beverage companies — Coca-Cola and Pepsi — claiming the soda and drink makers lied to the public about the effectiveness of plastic recycling and, as a result, left county residents and ecosystems choking in discarded plastic.
The suit is the latest in a series of high-profile legal actions California officials have taken against petrochemical corporations and plastic manufacturers. In September, state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and a group of environmental organizations sued Exxon Mobil, accusing the company of falsely promoting plastics as universally recyclable when, in reality, the vast majority of these products cannot be reused.
The Los Angeles County suit alleges — in a vein similar to that of Bonta’s suit against Exxon Mobil — that the global beverage companies misrepresented the environmental impact of their plastic bottles, “despite knowing that plastics cannot be readily disposed of without associated environmental impacts.”
“Coke and Pepsi need to stop the deception and take responsibility for the plastic pollution problems” their products are causing, said Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Chair Lindsey P. Horvath.
Neither company had yet to respond to requests for comment from The Times.
Currently, just 9% of the world’s plastics are recycled. The rest ends up being incinerated, sent to landfills, or discarded on the landscape, where they are often flushed into rivers or out to sea.
At the same time, there is growing concern about the health and environmental consequences of microplastics — the bits of degraded plastic that slough off as the product ages, or is used, or washed. The tiny particles have been detected in every ecosystem on the planet that has been surveyed, as well as nearly every living organism examined — including the brain, heart, lungs, blood and semen of humans.
In a statement, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors said that current methods of recycling are “incapable of eliminating environmental impacts.”
Coca-Cola and PepsiCo own the brands Coke, Pepsi, Dasani, Smartwater, Fanta, Aquafina, Gatorade, 7-Up, Sprite, Vitamin Water, and Mountain Dew, among others. Together, the two companies own roughly 72.8% of the carbonated soft drink market in the U.S. — with Coca-Cola owning 46.3% and Pepsi 26.5%.
According to the county’s statement, the two companies have consistently ranked as the world’s “top plastic polluters.”
Beverage industry representatives pushed back on that allegation and others, saying they were “simply not true.”
“California has one of the highest bottle recycling rates in the country — 71% in 2023. Our bottles are designed to be recycled and remade and can include up to 100% recycled plastic,” said William Dermody, vice president of media and public affairs for the American Beverage Assn. — the trade organization for the beverage industry.
“America’s beverage companies are proud of our leadership in California, and across the country, and will continue our partnership with the Golden State to get every bottle back,” he said.
However, waste experts say that even with that rate of recycling, almost 3.5 billion bottles are left unaccounted for. Likewise, the industry’s recycling claim does not acknowledge that bottles can be recycled only one or two times before the plastic is so heavily degraded it must be used as fuel stock, or for some other “downcycled” material, such as carpeting or outdoor patio furniture — which can’t be recycled.
“PepsiCo and Coca-Cola have misled consumers by deceptively promising that recycling can offset any harm associated with single-use plastic bottles,” said the county board in a statement. “… In reality, plastic bottles can only be recycled once, if at all, making promises of a ‘circular economy’ impossible.”
Environmentalists and plastic pollution opponents hailed the lawsuit, which was filed Wednesday.
“It’s encouraging to see corporate polluters finally being held accountable for exploiting the trust of their customers in order to turn huge profits at the expense of human and planetary health,” said Jennifer Savage of the nonprofit Surfrider Foundation.
Surfrider, Heal the Bay, Sierra Club and San Francisco Baykeeper collectively sued Exxon Mobil in September, in a lawsuit similar to Bonta’s.
“We applaud Los Angeles County for taking this action on plastic pollution,” said Matt Littlejohn of the nonprofit ocean conservation organization Oceana, which was not a plaintiff in the Exxon Mobil lawsuit. “This is a wake-up call. … It’s time for the companies to get serious about reducing single-use plastic and to stop hiding behind false solutions like recycling.”
The beverage maker lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court by County Counsel Dawyn R. Harrison on behalf of the people of the state of California.
The suit seeks injunctive relief to “stop the companies’ unfair and deceptive business practices, restitution for consumers of the money acquired by means of the companies’ unfair and deceptive business practices, and civil penalties of up to $2,500 per violation,” the county board said in a statement.
The penalties could be per customer or per bottle — the case will be prosecuted in civil court by the county counsel’s Affirmative Litigation and Consumer Protection Division.
“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,” Harrison said in a statement. “My office is committed to protecting the public from deceptive business practices and holding these companies accountable for their role in the plastic pollution crisis.”
Nike is cutting about 1,400 jobs in its operations division, mostly from its technology department, the company said Thursday.
In a note to employees, Venkatesh Alagirisamy, the chief operating officer of Nike, said that management was nearly done reorganizing the business for its turnaround plan, and that the goal was to operate with “more speed, simplicity and precision.”
“This is not a new direction,” Mr. Alagirisamy told employees. “It is the next phase of the work already underway.”
Nike, the world’s largest sportswear company, is trying to recover after missteps led to a prolonged sales slump, in which the brand leaned into lifestyle products and away from performance shoes and apparel. Elliott Hill, the chief executive, has worked to realign the company around sports and speed up product development to create more breakthrough innovations.
In March, Nike told investors that it expected sales to fall this year, with growth in North America offset by poor performance in Asia, where the brand is struggling to rejuvenate sales in China. Executives said at the time that more volatility brought on by the war in the Middle East and rising oil prices might continue to affect its business.
The reorganization has involved cuts across many parts of the organization, including at its headquarters in Beaverton, Ore. Nike slashed some corporate staff last year and eliminated nearly 800 jobs at distribution centers in January.
“You never want to have to go through any sort of layoffs, but to re-center the company, we’re doing some of that,” Mr. Hill said in an interview earlier this year.
Mr. Alagirisamy told employees that Nike was reshaping its technology team and centering employees at its headquarters and a tech center in Bengaluru, India. The layoffs will affect workers across North America, Europe and Asia.
The cuts will also affect staffing in Nike’s factories for Air, the company’s proprietary cushioning system. Employees who work on the supply chain for raw materials will also experience changes as staff is integrated into footwear and apparel teams.
Nike’s Converse brand, which has struggled for years to revive sales, will move some of its engineering resources closer to the factories they support, the company said.
Mr. Alagirisamy said the moves were necessary to optimize Nike’s supply chain, deploy technology faster and bolster relationships with suppliers.
A bill that would have required insurers to offer coverage to homeowners who take steps to reduce wildfire risk on their property died in the Legislature.
The Senate Insurance Committee on Monday voted down the measure, SB 1076, one of the most ambitious bills spurred by the devastating January 2025 wildfires.
The vote came despite fire victims and others rallying at the state Capitol in support of the measure, authored by state Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Pasadena), whose district includes the Eaton fire zone.
The Insurance Coverage for Fire-Safe Homes Act originally would have required insurers to offer and renew coverage for any home that meets wildfire-safety standards adopted by the insurance commissioner starting Jan. 1, 2028.
It also threatened insurers with a five-year ban from the sale of home or auto insurance if they did not comply, though it allowed for exceptions.
However, faced with strong opposition from the insurance industry, Pérez had agreed to amend the bill so it would have established community-wide pilot projects across the state to better understand the most effective way to limit property and insurance losses from wildfires.
Insurers would have had to offer four years of coverage to homeowners in successful pilot projects.
Denni Ritter, a vice president of the American Property Casualty Insurance Assn., told the committee that her trade group opposed the bill.
“While we appreciate the intent behind those conversations, those concepts do not remove our opposition, because they retain the same core flaw — substituting underwriting judgment and solvency safeguards with a statutory mandate to accept risk,” she said.
In voting against the bill Sen. Laura Richardson, (D-San Pedro), said: “Last I heard, in the United States, we don’t require any company to do anything. That’s the difference between capitalism and communism, frankly.”
The remarks against the measure prompted committee Chair Sen. Steve Padilla, (D-Chula Vista), to chastise committee members in opposition.
“I’m a little perturbed, and I’m a little disappointed, because you have someone who is trying to work with industry, who is trying to get facts and data,” he said.
Monday’s vote was the fourth time a bill that would have required insurers to offer coverage to so-called “fire hardened” homes failed in the Legislature since 2020, according to an analysis by insurance committee staff.
Fire hardening includes measures such as cutting back brush, installing fire resistant roofs and closing eaves to resist fire embers.
Pérez’s legislation was thought to have a better chance of passage because it followed the most catastrophic wildfires in U.S. history, which damaged or destroyed more than 18,000 structures and killed 31 people.
The bill was co-sponsored by the Los Angeles advocacy group Consumer Watchdog and Every Fire Survivor’s Network, a community group founded in Altadena after the fires formerly called the Eaton Fire Survivors Network.
But it also had broad support from groups such as the California Apartment Association, the California Nurses Association and California Environmental Voters.
Leading up to the fires, many insurers, citing heightened fire risk, had dropped policyholders in fire-prone neighorhoods. That forced them onto the California FAIR Plan, the state’s insurer of last resort, which offers limited but costly policies.
A Times analysis found that that in the Palisades and Eaton fire zones, the FAIR Plan’s rolls from 2020 to 2024 nearly doubled from 14,272 to 28,440. Mandating coverage has been seen as a way of reducing FAIR Plan enrollment.
“I’m disappointed this bill died in committee. Fire survivors deserved better,” Pérez said in a statement .
Also failing Monday in the committee was SB 982, a bill authored by Sen. Scott Wiener, (D-San Francisco). It would have authorized California’s attorney general to sue fossil fuel companies to recover losses from climate-induced disasters. It was opposed by the oil and gas industry.
Passing the committee were two other Pérez bills. SB 877 requires insurers to provide more transparency in the claims process. SB 878 imposes a penalty on insurers who don’t make claims payments on time.
Another bill, SB 1301, authored by insurance commissioner candidate Sen. Ben Allen, (D-Pacific Palisades), also passed. It protects policyholders from unexplained and abrupt policy non-renewals.
Times Insider explains who we are and what we do, and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.
Politicians in Washington and the reporters who cover them have an often adversarial relationship.
But on the last Saturday in April, they gather for an irreverent celebration of press freedom and the First Amendment at the Washington Hilton Hotel: The White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.
Hosted by the association, an organization that helps ensure access for media outlets covering the presidency, the dinner attracts Hollywood stars; politicians from both parties; and representatives of more than 100 networks, newspapers, magazines and wire services.
While The Times will have two reporters in the ballroom covering the event, the company no longer buys seats at the party, said Richard W. Stevenson, the Washington bureau chief. The decision goes back almost two decades; the last dinner The Times attended as an organization was in 2007.
“We made a judgment back then that the event had become too celebrity-focused and was undercutting our need to demonstrate to readers that we always seek to maintain a proper distance from the people we cover, many of whom attend as guests,” he said.
It’s a decision, he added, that “we have stuck by through both Republican and Democratic administrations, although we support the work of the White House Correspondents’ Association.”
Susan Wessling, The Times’s Standards editor, said the policy is a product of the organization’s desire to maintain editorial independence.
“We don’t want to leave readers with any questions about our independence and credibility by seeming to be overly friendly with people whose words and actions we need to report on,” she said.
The celebrity mentalist Oz Pearlman is headlining the evening, in lieu of the usual comedy set by the likes of Stephen Colbert and Hasan Minhaj, but all eyes will be on President Trump, who will make his first appearance at the dinner as president.
Mr. Trump has boycotted the event since 2011, when he was the butt of punchlines delivered by President Barack Obama and the talk show host Seth Meyers mocking his hair, his reality TV show and his preoccupation with the “birther” movement.
Last month, though, Mr. Trump, who has a contentious relationship with the media, announced his intention to attend this year’s dinner, where he will speak to a room full of the same reporters he often derides as “enemies of the people.”
Times reporters will be there to document the highs, the lows and the reactions in the room. A reporter for the Styles desk has also been assigned to cover the robust roster of after-parties around Washington.
Some off-duty reporters from The Times will also be present at this late-night circuit, though everyone remains cognizant of their roles, said Patrick Healy, The Times’s assistant managing editor for Standards and Trust.
“If they’re reporting, there’s a notebook or recorder out as usual,” he said. “If they’re not, they’re pros who know they’re always identifiable as Times journalists.”
For most of The Times’s reporters and editors, though, the evening will be experienced from home.
“The rest of us will be able to follow the coverage,” Mr. Stevenson said, “without having to don our tuxes or gowns.”
-
Michigan4 seconds agoHockey roundup: Michigan coach Brandon Naurato named to U.S. national team
-
Massachusetts6 minutes agoThe Arc of Massachusetts recognizes Vanna Howard as 2026 Legislator of the Year
-
Minnesota12 minutes agoNuggets-Timberwolves takeaways: Jaden McDaniels backs up his talk, as Minnesota dominates Game 3 with defense
-
Mississippi18 minutes agoFederal relief available for Mississippi farmers impacted by ongoing drought
-
Missouri24 minutes ago
Missouri Lottery Pick 3, Pick 4 winning numbers for April 23, 2026
-
Montana30 minutes agoMontana Student Loan Assistance Program Preserves Family Farms and Ranches
-
Nebraska36 minutes agoSergeant Mad Bear Recreation Area opens in Gretna
-
Nevada42 minutes agoHistoric Nevada elementary school to close this summer