Synopsis

Cigarettes are the most common type of litter in the world, and contrary to popular belief, they are not biodegradable. What is more, tobacco companies designed their cigarette filters to be non-biodegradable despite knowing that they would be littered. The County of Sacramento filed suit against Philip Morris and other major tobacco manufacturers to hold them accountable for cigarette litter, with charges including public nuisance, trespass, negligence, and violation of state law.

Why It Matters for Public Health

Cigarette filters are not biodegradable and are made of material that is toxic to many plants, microbes, insects, fish, and mammals. Used filters also release chemical compounds derived from tobacco combustion that further pollute waterways, soil, and the environment. In addition to the harmful effects of cigarette litter on other organisms and its contribution to degrading environments and habitats, cleaning up cigarette litter is costly, diverting limited government funds from other uses and investments.

Background

Since 1998, the Master Settlement Agreement has required tobacco companies to pay most states in perpetuity because of the harmful effects of cigarettes on human health. The MSA, however, does not address harms that cigarettes have imposed on non-human life, environments, and ecosystems.

The defendant cigarette manufacturers had originally designed biodegradable filters. They chose not to use them, however, after identifying that their customers preferred the draw of their non-biodegradable, plastic filters. The defendant cigarette manufacturers therefore opted for plastic filters to garner better sales, yet they also knew that people would litter these non-biodegradable products. They continue to know that people litter their cigarettes and still choose to use non-biodegradable filters.

Proceedings

The plaintiff filed its complaint on July 17, 2026. The complaint asserts eight causes of action: public nuisance, continuing trespass, negligence–design defect, strict liability–design defect, unjust enrichment, and violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law. The plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief.

Litigation Status (OPEN)

The plaintiff filed suit on July 17, 2026. On August 28, Philip Morris filed a notice of removal to the District Court for the Eastern District of California. The case is ongoing.