Gerard Scimeca, Chairman of Consumer Action for a Strong Economy (CASE), has raised concerns over the expansion of public nuisance laws by lawyers aiming to hold businesses accountable for various societal issues. Scimeca expressed these views 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.”
According to the International Association of Defense Counsel, public nuisance law was originally intended to address localized harms such as obstructed roads or polluted waterways. However, trial lawyers have increasingly utilized this doctrine to initiate broad lawsuits against lawful businesses. This expansion seeks damages for societal issues that the law was not designed to address.
Courts have started resisting these efforts by trial lawyers. The Oklahoma Supreme Court recently overturned a $465 million opioid verdict, stating that public nuisance law was never meant to regulate the manufacture and sale of lawful products. Similarly, a California judge dismissed opioid claims, concluding that lawyers were attempting to use the doctrine to blame businesses for broad social crises without evidence of direct harm.
A study by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform warns that trial lawyers are exploiting public nuisance lawsuits by targeting companies across various industries, including energy, manufacturing, and technology. These lawsuits are often pursued under contingency-fee arrangements promising significant payouts for lawyers. The report warns that this misuse creates “uncertain and unlimited liability,” discourages innovation, and ultimately increases costs for consumers.
Scimeca is also General Counsel at CASE, where he leads advocacy against abusive litigation practices. Before focusing on legal reform, he worked as a media analyst and campaign strategist. At CASE, he actively writes and speaks about how trial lawyers exploit doctrines like public nuisance law, resulting in costly lawsuits that burden both businesses and consumers.
