Quantcast

Walmart beats Greenpeace in suit over recyclable products

LEGAL NEWSLINE

Friday, December 27, 2024

Walmart beats Greenpeace in suit over recyclable products

Federal Court
Walmart

OAKLAND, Calif. (Legal Newsline) – Greenpeace can’t sue Walmart over whether its recyclable products actually benefit the environment.

California federal judge Maxine Chesney on Sept. 20 threw out Greenpeace’s lawsuit, which hoped to impose liability on Walmart under California’s Unfair Competition Law.

The case says some of Walmart’s products are marketed and sold as recyclable but they cannot be separated or removed from the general waste stream in order to be placed into the correct materials bale at recycling centers.

There are no end markets to reuse the products, the suit claims, and they end up in landfills or incinerators. But Greenpeace lacked standing to sue, Chesney ruled.

The advocacy group claimed Walmart’s statements have frustrated Greenpeace’s mission to protect the natural environment and caused it to spend money and staff time to respond.

“Here, nothing in the (first amended complaint) suggests Greenpeace engaged in its investigation in reliance on a belief that the statements on which it bases its claims were true; rather, the FAC alleges the action taken by Greenpeace was in response to its belief that the challenged statements were false; in other words, Greenpeace was never misled,” Chesney wrote.

In its motion to dismiss, Walmart argued its products are properly labeled as recyclable.

“Even if Greenpeace’s novel theory were correct, it would not have a cause of action against Walmart, partly because (as it concedes) the reasons more plastic products are not recycled involve market conditions and third-party actions for which Walmart is not responsible,” the motion says.

The motion’s legal arguments included:

- Walmart’s conduct is no different in California than anywhere else and that the causal connection Greenpeace asserts to establish jurisdiction in California “is too attenuated”;

-Greenpeace’s UCL claim fails because it fails to allege the company lost property or money as a result of Walmart’s conduct; and

-Greenpeace’s complaint does not specify the products at issue.

Chesney is allowing Greenpeace to try to file an amended complaint that establishes its standing.

More News