United States: Baltimore sues tobacco manufacturers over the environmental cost of cigarette butts

The city of Baltimore, Maryland, has filed a lawsuit against several tobacco manufacturers, accusing them of being responsible for the substantial environmental costs generated by cigarette butt waste. This action is part of a broader legal strategy aimed at reclassifying cigarette butts as industrial pollution, the financial burden of which should no longer fall on local governments. By directly targeting the manufacturers, the city intends to have them recognized as responsible for bringing to market products that generate large quantities of persistent and toxic waste, the management of which currently relies almost exclusively on public funds.[1].

A lawsuit focused on the costs of collection and depollution

The legal action initiated by the city of Baltimore is based on a precise and documented quantification of the public costs generated by cigarette butt pollution, while also raising a fundamental legal issue concerning manufacturer liability. The city states that it spends over $5 million annually cleaning up cigarette butts, as part of broader urban waste management expenditures that include street sweeping, stormwater drainage maintenance, and the processing of collected waste. These costs, described as structural and recurring, are directly linked to the widespread use of cellulose acetate filters, a non-biodegradable plastic that breaks down into microplastics and releases toxic substances into the environment.

At the heart of the dispute is also an attempt by tobacco companies to neutralize this action by relying on the 1998 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (MSA). According to the manufacturers, this agreement, which has resulted in the payment of several billion dollars to US states, including more than 3 billion to Maryland, includes a waiver clause covering all damages related to cigarettes, including those claimed by the city of Baltimore. They argue that this would legally prevent local governments from taking further action, in exchange for the financial compensation already paid.

Baltimore disputes this interpretation and refocuses the debate on the very nature of its legal action: a strictly environmental claim, distinct from the health disputes that formed the basis of the 1998 agreement. The city emphasizes that its complaint seeks neither reimbursement for healthcare costs nor damages related to tobacco use, but rather compensation for a pervasive and tangible pollution that has a lasting impact on public spaces and natural environments. This distinction has been recognized at this stage by the courts, which have allowed the proceedings to continue on several grounds, including public nuisance and failure to provide information.[2].

Beyond the question of admissibility, Baltimore seeks recognition that the costs incurred are not related to ordinary urban waste management, but rather constitute negative industrial externalities resulting from the marketing of a product designed without consideration for its end-of-life impact. By including in its claim the past and future costs of pollution cleanup, as well as the associated environmental damage, the city intends to obtain full compensation and establish a legal precedent aimed at shifting the financial burden of this pollution from taxpayers to tobacco manufacturers, in accordance with the polluter-pays principle.

In France, a controversial extended liability scheme: the Alcome case

In France, cigarette waste management falls under the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme, implemented through the eco-organization Alcome, approved in 2021 and funded by tobacco manufacturers. This system relies on financial contributions from industry to partially cover the costs incurred by local authorities for cigarette butt management, while also funding awareness campaigns and the provision of equipment (ashtrays, collection points). It also aims to reduce the number of cigarette butts in public spaces.

However, several recent administrative decisions have highlighted the structural limitations of this mechanism. In particular, the State has sanctioned Alcome for failing to meet its obligations, especially regarding achieving the set targets for waste reduction and the effective coverage of costs incurred by local authorities.[3]. These decisions highlight a significant gap between the stated ambitions of the system and its operational implementation, particularly in terms of funding, transparency and the effectiveness of the actions deployed.

Beyond these shortcomings, the very model of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) applied to tobacco products is subject to recurring criticism from civil society. On the one hand, financial support remains partial and is governed by restrictive criteria (notably the notion of "efficient" costs), leaving a substantial portion of the expenses to be borne by local authorities. On the other hand, the direct involvement of the tobacco industry in the governance and implementation of the system is denounced as incompatible with the requirements of protecting public policies, particularly with regard to Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. This article, as well as its implementing guidelines, emphasizes that the interests pursued by tobacco companies and those of human and environmental health are opposed and irreconcilable.

In fact, the actions implemented, primarily focused on raising awareness among smokers and managing waste downstream, are considered insufficient to address the scale of this pervasive, persistent, and difficult-to-collect pollution. Even measures aimed at eliminating waste at the source, such as expanding smoking bans in outdoor areas and encouraging people to quit smoking, are never considered, as they directly conflict with the interests of manufacturers.

In this context, the system is regularly criticized, often ultimately considered as a communication tool for the industry, contributing to maintaining the idea of controlled management of cigarette butts, without questioning the very production of this waste.

These limitations fuel calls for an evolution of the regulatory framework, favoring structural measures to reduce emissions at the source. Among the proposed solutions are a ban on cigarette filters, the implementation of a strengthened liability regime excluding manufacturers from any operational role, and the alignment of environmental policies with public health objectives.

©Generation Without Tobacco

AE

[1] Baltimore claimt milieuschade door sigarettenafva, Tabaknee, published on April 8, 2026, accessed the same day

[2] Ian Round, Tobacco companies claim immunity in pollution lawsuit by Baltimore, The Daily Record, published March 27, 2026, accessed April 9, 2026

[3] The Council of State approves the missions imposed on the eco-organization Alcome concerning cigarette butts, Tobacco-Free Generation, accessed December 22, 2024, accessed April 9, 2026