By Timothy S. Donahue
Top Takeaways:
- Court battle: Baltimore is urging a state court to keep its case against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Philip Morris USA alive.
- Core claim: The city claims cigarette manufacturers should cover millions in yearly cleanup expenses caused by filter waste.
- Legal strategy: The case relies on public nuisance and product liability claims rather than traditional smoking-related health damages.
Baltimore is increasing its efforts to hold major tobacco companies financially accountable — not for smoking-related illnesses, but for what remains on the streets.
The city is urging a Maryland state court to reject efforts by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Philip Morris USA and other manufacturers to dismiss a lawsuit seeking to recover the costs of cleaning up cigarette filter waste. The case is part of a rising trend of litigation focused on the environmental impact of tobacco products, rather than their direct health effects.
Baltimore’s argument is clear: cigarette filters—made from non-biodegradable cellulose acetate—are the most common type of litter worldwide, and cities end up paying the cost.
According to court filings, the city allocates over $5 million each year to manage discarded cigarette butts that pollute streets, waterways, and public spaces.
Baltimore alleges that tobacco companies knowingly designed and sold products that produce persistent environmental waste, while failing to adequately warn consumers or reduce the impact. The lawsuit includes claims like public nuisance, design defect, and failure to warn, along with violations of local and state laws.
In a motion for summary judgement, the defendants stated that Maryland has received over $3 billion in settlement payments and continues to receive more than $140 million each year. They argued that the settlement uses the “broadest possible language” to prevent claims and “plainly covers” the city’s claims.
“In exchange for these large, perpetual payments, Maryland — on its own behalf and on behalf of all of its political subdivisions including the City of Baltimore — released all claims in any way related to the use of, or exposure to, manufacturer Defendants’ cigarettes,” the defendants’ motion argued.
Courts have already shown some willingness to let the case proceed. In 2025, a Baltimore circuit court denied motions to dismiss, allowing key claims to move forward and rejecting arguments that they were preempted by federal law or barred by prior tobacco settlements.
That includes the landmark 1998 Master Settlement Agreement, which required major tobacco companies to pay billions to states for healthcare costs—but did not address environmental damage.
The current stage of the case focuses on whether the claims will withstand ongoing legal challenges and move forward to trial.
For combustible cigarette manufacturers, the stakes extend beyond Baltimore. If successful, the case could set a precedent for similar lawsuits from municipalities, shifting some of the financial responsibility for tobacco-related waste from taxpayers to manufacturers.
