Commissioner of the Department of Licensing & Consumer Affairs v. PepsiCo, Inc.

On May 19, 2025, the PepsiCo defendants removed the case to federal court, arguing that federal jurisdiction existed because USVI’s claims “necessarily involve substantial questions of federal law” because they incorporate and rely on the federal consent decrees concerning the two landfills and collaterally attack court orders approving the consent decrees. Alternatively, the defendants contended that if the federal court determined that only the public nuisance claim arose under federal law, the other two claims were within the court’s supplemental jurisdiction.

On April 11, 2025, the Commissioner of the Department of Licensing and Consumer Affairs and the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) filed a lawsuit in Virgin Islands Superior Court against PepsiCo and Coca-Cola defendants alleging that the companies engaged in disinformation campaigns regarding the recyclability of single-use plastic bottles while knowing that “plastic recycling is mostly theater—a show designed to make consumers feel good about, and be willing to, consume unprecedented volumes of Defendants’ single-use plastic.” The complaint alleged that plastic pollution posed threats to terrestrial ecosystems, marine life, and human health and that the Virgin Islands face a waste management crisis resulting from the defendants’ action. The complaint cited federal consent decrees between USVI and the United States requiring USVI to stop accepting waste at two landfills and to undertake other measures. Alleged harms from plastic pollution also included climate change-related harms, including reductions in ecosystems’ capacity to adapt to climate change and the release of greenhouse gas emissions as plastic resins break down. The complaint alleged that recycling alone would be “incapable” of eliminating impacts of plastic production such as greenhouse gas emissions and that “advanced” or “chemical” recycling, which converts certain plastic wastes into fuels, chemicals, waxes, and petrochemical feedstocks, is more expensive, requires more energy, and creates more greenhouse gas emissions. The complaint asserted that the defendants violated USVI’s Consumer Protection Law of 1973 and Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and contributed to the creation of a public nuisance. The relief sought included injunctive relief, civil penalties, abatement of the nuisance, and payment of proceeds from violations of the Consumer Protection Law into an account to be administered pursuant to the Consumer Protection Law.