BY Timothy S. Donahue

Top Takeaways:

• Cleanup costs: Albuquerque wants tobacco companies to pay for cigarette-filter waste that it says burdens city.
• Plastic problem: The lawsuit targets cellulose acetate filters that the city alleges persist in the environment and break down into microplastics.
• Growing litigation: Albuquerque follows similar cigarette-filter lawsuits filed by Baltimore, Fresno, Sacramento County and Denver.

Another city wants Big Tobacco to pick up its butts.

Albuquerque, New Mexico, has sued some of the world’s largest tobacco companies, seeking to make the industry pay for cigarette-filter waste that the city says litters public spaces, clogs storm drains, and ultimately reaches the Rio Grande.

The lawsuit, filed in New Mexico’s Second Judicial District Court, alleges that cigarette manufacturers have known for decades that their plastic filters create persistent environmental waste and leave municipalities and taxpayers responsible for cleaning it up.

“Our storm drains should carry water, not toxic garbage,” Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller said. “And the companies profiting from these products should take responsibility for the lasting harm they have on the environment and our essential systems.”

The lawsuit names Philip Morris USA and its parent, Altria Group; R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co.; Reynolds American; British American Tobacco; and Liggett Group. Albuquerque-based BSR Distributing, which does business as Blue Sky Distributors, is also named.

The complaint focuses on cellulose acetate, the plastic used in most cigarette filters. Albuquerque alleges that discarded filters accumulate on sidewalks, streets, parks, and other public property before wind and stormwater carry them into arroyos, drainage channels, and ultimately the Rio Grande.

The city is seeking compensation for costs related to cleaning up and removing cigarette-filter waste, maintaining affected infrastructure, and responding to alleged environmental damage. City Attorney Lauren Keefe said Albuquerque also hopes the litigation will prompt manufacturers to change their practices.

“We’re hoping to recover some of the money that we’ve had to spend over the years to clean up our stormwater, to clean up our parks, to clean up our streets,” Keefe said. “But we’re also hoping that maybe these companies change their conduct.”

Albuquerque is the latest local government to take legal action against the tobacco industry over discarded filters.

Baltimore launched its litigation strategy in November 2022, describing its case as the first lawsuit against cigarette manufacturers to recover cigarette-filter cleanup costs. Baltimore estimated that it spent about $5.3 million annually to mitigate cigarette-filter litter. That case remains active.

Fresno, California, filed suit on July 17, 2026, against Philip Morris USA, Altria, Reynolds, and several other tobacco companies. Its claims include public nuisance, continuing trespass, negligence, and strict liability for alleged design defects and violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law.

Sacramento County also filed a cigarette-filter case against many of the same companies. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Aug. 28.

Denver joined the litigation train on Aug. 7. Its lawsuit alleges that tobacco companies should be responsible for the costs of cigarette-filter waste on city property, including streets, stormwater systems and waterways.

“We want to make sure that they pay their fair share of the cost that cities are bearing to clean up their mess,” Denver Mayor Mike Johnston said after the lawsuit was filed.

Albuquerque’s complaint cites a 2020 study estimating that the 30 largest U.S. cities spend a combined $264.5 million annually to clean up tobacco-product waste, or an average of $6.46 per resident.

The complaint also turns the industry’s own words against it. It opens with a statement from Philip Morris International’s website that “by 2030 there could be more cigarette butts than fish in the oceans.” PMI itself is not named as a defendant in the Albuquerque lawsuit.

Albuquerque is seeking a jury trial, damages for cigarette-filter waste, and a court-ordered cleanup program.