ExxonMobil Goes on Offensive in Plastics Litigation
On January 6, 2025, ExxonMobil filed a lawsuit against California Attorney General Robert Bonta in Texas federal court in response to recent California lawsuits against the company pertaining to plastic recycling. This emerging new litigation trend was covered extensively in our most recent Judicial Hellholes report.
Exxon’s countersuit contends that “Together, Bonta and the US Proxies — the former for political gain and the latter pawns for the Foreign Interests — have engaged in a deliberate smear campaign against ExxonMobil, falsely claiming that ExxonMobil’s effective and innovative advanced recycling technology is a ‘false promise’ and ‘not based on truth.’”
Furthermore, it alleges that Attorney General Bonta, individually and in conspiracy with foreign interests and environmental groups, engaged in wrongful conduct, including business disparagement, defamation, tortious interference with contract and prospective business, equitable relief and it further seeks a declaratory judgment.
One such foreign interest was IEJF, an Australian charity founded by one of the largest shareholders of an Australian mining conglomerate that competes with ExxonMobil in the low carbon solutions and energy transition markets. In an almost unprecedented development, the Department of Justice required the U.S. lawyers for IEJF, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP, to register as foreign agents under the Foreign Agency Registration Act (FARA). The non-profit hired Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP to sue ExxonMobil on behalf of several environmental groups, including Sierra Club, Surfrider and others.
IEJF also happens to be a significant contributor to AG Bonta’s political campaigns having donated tens of thousands of dollars in recent years.
Background on California’s Plastics Lawsuit
In September 2024, California’s attorney general Rob Bonta and a coalition of environmental activist groups, including the Sierra Club, filed a pair of lawsuits against ExxonMobil Corp., alleging Exxon is responsible for litter across California and the Pacific Ocean due to the production and recyclability of plastic. The California lawsuits claim violations of California’s public nuisance, natural resources, false advertising, environmental marketing, and unfair competition laws. The lawsuits attack the company’s use of its advanced recycling technologies that recycle plastic waste.
A representative for Exxon responded to the lawsuits by saying, “Instead of suing us, they could have worked with us to fix the problem and keep plastic out of landfills…To date, we’ve processed more than 60 million pounds of plastic waste into usable raw materials, keeping it out of landfills.”
Bad News for Bonta’s Quest to Hold Exxon Liable for Pollution
New York Attorney General Letitia James’ similar attempt to hold Pepsico and its subsidiary Frito-Lay responsible for polluting the Buffalo River and nearby waterways hit a substantial roadblock after her case was thrown out by the State of New York Supreme Court for Erie County. Judge Emilio Colaiacovo dismissed the case in October, finding that the attorney general was making “phantom assertions of liability that do nothing to solve” the pollution and recycling problems in Buffalo. He continued, “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.”
The court issued a strong rebuke of the arguments made by the attorney general, pointing to the fact that it was other people that had polluted the waterways, not the company. “As Defendants rightly note, there are recycling bins everywhere along canalside and the other water tributaries… Yet, people continue to litter. Instead of pursuing those who commit the act, the Attorney General wishes to penalize those who produce the discarded item. This theory has never been adopted by a court in this state or any other.”
“Absent the legislature passing a law or the executive branch issuing an order establishing such a theory of liability or imposing restrictions on what type and amount of plastic can be used, this lawsuit is simply policy idealism.”
