Gerard Scimeca, Chairman of Consumer Action for a Strong Economy, said litigation has been initiated in states like Maryland through public nuisance lawsuits targeting businesses for issues such as plastic pollution and opioid abuse. The statement was made in an op-ed.
“Lawyers are expanding the scope of public nuisance laws in an attempt to hold businesses accountable for nearly every problematic issue imaginable,” said Scimeca. “Litigation has been initiated in Ohio, West Virginia, California and other states addressing such things as alleged plastic pollution, opioid abuse, energy production and recycling. Public nuisance law has been perverted from its original doctrine by rapacious lawyers exploiting societal problems for a massive payday. State legislatures can help rein in the exploitation of public nuisance law by approving commonsense reforms of the system.”
Public nuisance law was historically intended to address localized harms such as obstructed roads or polluted waterways. The International Association of Defense Counsel notes that trial lawyers have increasingly exploited this narrow doctrine, transforming it into a tool to launch sweeping lawsuits against lawful businesses. This expansion seeks damages for societal issues that the law was never designed to resolve.
Courts have begun pushing back against efforts by trial lawyers to expand nuisance law for profit. The Oklahoma Supreme Court overturned a $465 million opioid verdict, ruling public nuisance law was never meant to regulate the manufacture and sale of lawful products. Similarly, a California judge dismissed opioid claims, finding lawyers attempted to exploit the doctrine to blame businesses for broad social crises without proof of direct harm.
A U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform study warns that trial lawyers are exploiting public nuisance lawsuits by targeting companies in industries from energy and manufacturing to technology. These lawsuits are often pursued under contingency-fee arrangements that promise enormous payouts for lawyers. The report cautions that this misuse creates “uncertain and unlimited liability,” discourages innovation, and ultimately drives up costs for consumers.
Gerard Daniel Scimeca is Chairman and General Counsel of Consumer Action for a Strong Economy, where he leads advocacy against abusive litigation practices. A former media analyst and campaign strategist, he has consulted on dozens of winning races before turning to legal reform. At CASE, he writes and speaks widely on how trial lawyers exploit doctrines like public nuisance law, pushing costly lawsuits that burden businesses and consumers alike.
