Baltimore cigarette litter class action lawsuit:
- Who: The mayor and the city of Baltimore sued cigarette makers Phillip Morris USA, Altria Group, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, British American Tobacco PLC, Liggett Group LLC and The George J. Falter Company over littered butts.
- Why: Baltimore and Mayor Brandon M. Scott say the companies should be held responsible for choosing to make cigarette butts that are non-biodegradable and therefore a public nuisance when littered.
- Where: The Baltimore cigarette litter lawsuit was filed in Maryland state court.
The city of Baltimore and its mayor launched a first-of-its-kind lawsuit against six major tobacco companies, saying that their choice to make cigarettes with non-biodegradable butts has caused a public nuisance throughout the city.
According to the Baltimore class action, cigarette filters are the main source of litter in the world. Allegedly, people throw away around 4.5 trillion cigarette filters each year around the world. Unfortunately, smokers often do not dispose of the butts properly, littering them onto streets, sidewalks and parks.
Mayor Brandon M. Scott and the city assert that it is not just smokers who are to blame for the extensive number of butts littered throughout Baltimore. Instead, the Baltimore cigarette litter lawsuit asserts that it is the cigarette makers who are to blame for the debris. Allegedly, the companies are well aware that around 65% of cigarette smokers litter their cigarette butts instead of disposing of them properly.
Knowing that these butts often end up as litter, the companies still do not take steps to protect the environment from this letter, the Baltimore class action claims. Allegedly, most cigarette butts contain filters that are made of cellulose acetate, a material that is not biodegradable. Cellulose acetate is photodegradable, which means that it breaks down into small pieces when exposed to ultraviolet light, according to the lawsuit.
This, in turn, means that the components of cellulose acetate find their way into the environment and will be toxic to plants and animals, the suit states.
Baltimore class action alleges cigarette companies choose profit over environment
According to the city, the cigarette companies could make filters out of a biodegradable material, such as cotton. However, cigarette makers allegedly prioritize profits over the environment, as they are aware that smokers largely prefer cellulose acetate filters over cotton filters because they provide a “cleaner” smoking experience, the Baltimore class action states.
The city of Baltimore foots the bill to clean up litter caused by cellulose acetate filters, and this cost is ultimately passed on to taxpayers, the lawsuit states. Reportedly, the city of Baltimore spends more than $32 million to collect litter annually, and a large potion of this is cigarette filters. Through just one program, the city has collected more than 12,478,765 cigarette filters since 2014, the suit claims.
Now, the city seeks compensation from the major cigarette companies in an attempt to relieve the city and taxpayers of the cost of cleaning up what they claim is the cigarette industry’s mess.
What do you think of the cigarette litter lawsuit? Should the cigarette companies be blamed?
The mayor and the city of Baltimore are represented by City Solicitor James L. Shea, Chief Solicitor Sara Gross, Assistant Solicitor Jane Lewis, Marc Grossman and Melissa Sims of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Andy Roy L. Mason and Zachary Howerton of Smouse & Mason LLC.
The Baltimore cigarette litter lawsuit is the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Philip Morris USA Inc. et al., in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. The case number is unavailable.
Don’t Miss Out!
Check out our list of Class Action Lawsuits and Class Action Settlements you may qualify to join!
Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:
One thought on Baltimore brings ‘first-of-its-kind’ class action against cigarette companies over litter cleanup
I agree with the mayor and city. Cigarette companies should be held responsible