* Violating §1770(a)(5,7,9) of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, which is effectively a false advertising law.
* Public nuisance
* Express warranty violation (again, basically "this product doesn't do what you told me it would do")
* Strict liability claims for environment damage (as far as I can make it out)
* Negligence claims for the above as well.
The first and third claims are really, really hard to substantiate because the plaintiffs are arguing on the basis that the claim of "recyclable" should be interpreted as "actually recycled in practice" as opposed to the definition of "recyclable" that appears in regulation... I can't see a judge buying that. I imagine the last two claims will fail due to lack of direct harm--I'm not intimately familiar with California law here, but they're not citing any particular law or precedent to establish why they have standing to sue on the basis of only general public harm. Public nuisance is the only claim I could see standing, but even then, the rather indirect nature is going to make this difficult to sustain.
In short, this appears to me to be more of a "we're suing them to make a statement" kind of case than a "we're suing them because we actually have a legal claim" kind.
This suit is an awful idea.
Even if the court decides that you haven't stated a justiciable claim?
There's a difference between (1) trying to speak to someone in a language they understand, and (2) imagining what you think that would be like, doing that without reference to whether it makes any sense, and then congratulating yourself for your penetrating insight. You can't speak to someone in a language that they understand but you don't!
From the Table of Contents:
A. Defendants created the condition of plastic pollution, which is extraordinarily harmful to humans, animals, and the environment. 22
B. As Defendants have known for decades, recycling by itself cannot prevent plastic pollution from damaging oceans, waterways, and coasts 29
C. Defendants refuse to adopt more sustainable alternatives in order reap higher profits resulting from using virgin plastic. 37
D. Defendants’ decades-long campaign of misinformation about their Products’ recyclability puts the cost of plastic pollution on consumers and public entities. 39