Florida’s Attorney General Takes On The ‘Green’ Plastics Cartel

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier recently did something that environmental activist groups clearly weren’t expecting: He stopped asking nicely. [some emphasis, links added]

Earlier this month, Mr. Uthmeier issued civil investigative demands to the U.S. Plastics Pact, the Consumer Goods Forum, the Sustainable Packaging Coalition, and to corporate members Coca-Cola, Mondelez, Nestle, Target, and Unilever.

The civil investigative demands compel these organizations and companies to turn over communications, documents, and records related to their coordinated packaging rules, including their “problematic materials” lists.

Mr. Uthmeier alleged that these groups have been operating what amounts to a green cartel, coordinating corporate behavior, restricting which products can be made and sold, and driving up costs for consumers — all under the guise of “sustainability.”

If that sounds like an antitrust violation to you, it did to Florida’s attorney general, too.

“Environmental groups are pressuring corporations to abandon free-market principles and raise prices on consumers for products they don’t want,” Mr. Uthmeier said.

“Our office provided them with a sufficient opportunity to respond to our inquiries regarding potential violations of the law. Time’s up.”

He is right.

This investigation started back in October 2025, when Mr. Uthmeier led a coalition of attorneys general from Texas, Iowa, Nebraska, and Montana in sending letters directly to the environmental organizations, warning that their coordinated market activities raised serious antitrust concerns.

The groups apparently didn’t take the hint.

In February, the coalition, now expanded to 10 Republican attorneys general, sent letters to nearly 80 corporations warning that their continued participation in these organizations could expose them to antitrust liability.

Some companies read the room. Nestle and Mondelez left the U.S. Plastics Pact in 2025. Walmart and Mars did the same after concluding that their recycling targets were unrealistic and costly, and that they produced no real environmental benefit.

Others didn’t budge.

Coca-Cola, for instance, still aims to use 30% to 35% recycled plastic in its packaging. Target still touts its membership as a U.S. Plastics Pact “activator,” working toward goals such as making all packaging reusable, recyclable, or compostable.

What makes this investigation different from the letters that preceded it is the civil investigative demands themselves. A letter is a warning. A civil investigative demand is a legal instrument that requires companies and organizations to produce the documents and communications requested.

The Florida attorney general’s office is moving from talk to action, and it’s exactly the kind of enforcement that free market advocates have been awaiting.

So what exactly are the civil investigative demands after? According to Bloomberg Law, the demands target communications between the companies and the environmental groups that have collaborated on industry packaging practices.

The demands cite the Florida Antitrust Act, alleging that “agreements that unreasonably restrain trade and result in increased costs, reduced output and reduced quality of goods and services” may be in play.

The Consumer Goods Forum’s “Golden Design Rules” require member companies to adopt uniform packaging standards by agreed-upon deadlines. The U.S. Plastics Pact’s“Roadmap to 2025” set four binding targets, including eliminating “problematic” plastics and increasing recycled content to 30%.

The timing matters too.

Just four days before these civil investigative demands, Mr. Uthmeier’s office subpoenaed the Environmental Law Institute and its Climate Judiciary Project, demanding it disclose funding sources, communications with Florida judges, and its role in climate-related litigation.

Mr. Uthmeier called it part of a “Climate Cartel” trying to hijack the judicial system.

The plastics civil investigative demands fit the same systematic effort to expose how activist organizations coordinate corporate and legal behavior behind closed doors. (Mr. Uthmeier’s office has also previously subpoenaed the Science Based Targets initiative and CDP, two other pillars of the corporate sustainability compliance ecosystem.)

The message to the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) establishment is becoming clear: If your “voluntary” frameworks function as mechanisms for coordinating market behavior and suppressing competition, then state attorneys general are prepared to treat them that way.

Florida and its coalition partners deserve credit for following through. Too often, state-level pushback against ESG overreach amounts to nothing more than sharply worded letters and press conferences.

Mr. Uthmeier is putting legal teeth behind the rhetoric, and the companies and organizations on the receiving end of these civil investigative demands would be wise to take notice.

The free market doesn’t need a cartel of activist nonprofits telling it what kind of plastic bottle your soda should come in. Consumers are perfectly capable of making those choices themselves if the green lobby gets out of the way.

Read more at CFACT