Greenpeace, Inc. v. Walmart Inc.

Greenpeace and Walmart stipulated to the dismissal without prejudice of Greenpeace’s lawsuit alleging that Walmart’s marketing of plastic and plastic-packaged products as recyclable violated California’s Environmental Marketing Claims Act and constituted an unlawful and unfair business practices under the State’s Unfair Competition Law. Greenpeace alleged that it had been “working to prevent the proliferation of plastic pollution for nearly four decades,” including by seeking to reduce or eliminate single-use plastic packaging because of its environmental impacts, including impacts on climate. The joint stipulation for dismissal was filed several weeks after the federal district court for the Northern District of California ruled that Greenpeace’s allegations in its third amended complaint were insufficient to establish standing.

The federal district court for the Northern District of California dismissed Greenpeace’s lawsuit alleging that Walmart’s marketing of plastic and plastic-packaged products as recyclable violated California’s Unfair Competition Law. The complaint’s allegations included that plastic pollution “is accompanied by an array of negative side effects,” including emissions of “large amounts of methane.” The court found that Greenpeace failed to sufficiently allege an “informational injury” or an injury based on future diversions of resources for purposes of Article III standing. However, the court granted Greenpeace leave to amend to supplement its standing allegations.

The federal district court for the Northern District of California ruled that Greenpeace did not have standing to bring claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law related to Walmart’s sale of plastic and plastic-packaged products under its private label brands. Greenpeace alleged that Walmart advertised and marketed products and packaging made from plastics #3-7 or unidentified plastic as “recyclable” when they are not recyclable. Greenpeace alleged that consumers “concerned with the proliferation of plastic pollution” and its environmental impact—including methane emissions—actively seek products that are recyclable, and that Walmart’s representations were likely to deceive the public. In addition, Greenpeace alleged that Walmart violated California’s policy against misrepresenting the environmental attributes of products. The court found that none of Greenpeace’s allegations demonstrated that Greenpeace took action in reliance on the truth of Walmart’s representations and that Greenpeace therefore did not meet the Unfair Competition Law’s requirements for standing. The court said Greenpeace could file an amended complaint if it did so by October 15, 2021.