By Timothy S. Donahue

Top Takeaways:

• New legal front: Sacramento County and the City of Fresno have filed lawsuits seeking to hold major tobacco companies financially responsible for cleanup costs related to discarded cigarette filters.
• Plastic pollution focus: The complaints argue that cellulose acetate cigarette filters constitute persistent plastic pollution, create a public nuisance, and impose millions of dollars in public cleanup costs.
• Growing pressure: The cases build on ongoing litigation in Baltimore and mirror European policies requiring tobacco companies to help fund cigarette filter waste collection.

Sacramento County has joined a growing legal effort to hold the tobacco industry financially responsible for cigarette filter pollution, filing suit against many of the world’s largest cigarette manufacturers over cleanup costs for discarded cigarette butts.

After authorization by the County Board of Supervisors, the lawsuit was filed in the Sacramento County Superior Court and alleges that cigarette manufacturers should bear the cost of removing billions of discarded filters that accumulate on streets, sidewalks, parks and waterways. The county is seeking damages, restitution and a jury trial.

Named defendants include Philip Morris USA, Altria Group, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Reynolds American, Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., British American Tobacco, ITG Brands, Liggett Group, Liggett Vector Brands, and Pittco Tobacco.

The complaint argues that cigarette filters are made from cellulose acetate, a plastic polymer that does not readily biodegrade and can break down into microplastics while releasing other chemicals into the environment. Sacramento contends that tobacco companies have long known that discarded filters create persistent pollution but have continued manufacturing and marketing the products without taking sufficient steps to address their environmental impact.

“The injuries alleged herein do not arise from a single unidentified cigarette filter or an isolated product occurrence,” the complaint states. “They arise from the continuing and cumulative accumulation of enormous quantities of discarded cigarette filters manufactured, marketed, supplied, distributed, and sold by defendants for consumption within Sacramento County.”

Sacramento alleges the companies are liable under multiple legal theories, including public nuisance, negligence, design defect, and failure to warn. County officials clarified that the lawsuit does not seek to require manufacturers to redesign cigarettes or add new warnings. Instead, it seeks to recover taxpayer funds spent cleaning up cigarette filter waste.

Christopher Schnieders, lead trial counsel for Sacramento County, said that local governments should not bear the financial burden of removing cigarette litter. “Our feeling is that the tobacco companies profited and these cities and counties are paying the cleanup bill through their taxpayers,” Schnieders said. “It’s an important case to be able to take these amounts that are being paid by the taxpayers and direct them back at the entities that are actually causing this harm.”

The Sacramento case arrives alongside a nearly identical lawsuit filed by the City of Fresno, marking one of the first coordinated efforts by California local governments to pursue the tobacco industry over cigarette filter pollution. The litigation also follows a 2022 lawsuit filed by the City of Baltimore, in which a Maryland court allowed several key claims to proceed after rejecting much of the tobacco industry’s motion to dismiss.

The lawsuits reflect growing scrutiny of cigarette filters as a source of single-use plastic pollution. Under the European Union’s Single-Use Plastics Directive, tobacco manufacturers are already required to contribute to the costs of collecting and cleaning up cigarette filter waste through extended producer responsibility programs.