McIntyre Schnieders views the recent rulings in Baltimore City’s cigarette-filter litigation as important developments for municipalities seeking to address the environmental and infrastructure burdens caused by discarded plastic cigarette filters.
Core municipal claims remain pending
In the Baltimore case, the court permitted claims involving defective design, negligent failure to warn, and public nuisance to proceed. Although the court dismissed certain other counts, the ruling allows Baltimore to continue pursuing significant tort claims based on the alleged design, environmental persistence, and foreseeable disposal of cigarette filters.
Environmental claims held outside the MSA
In a subsequent decision announced by the Maryland Attorney General on November 2, 2026, the court held that Baltimore’s environmental claims are outside the scope of the 1998 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement. The court also held that tobacco companies may not offset potential liability to Baltimore against payments owed to Maryland under the MSA.
The Maryland Attorney General characterized the ruling as the first in the nation to address whether the MSA covers a local government’s claims for environmental damage caused by cigarette products.
The firm’s perspective
In the firm’s view, these decisions reinforce two important principles. First, environmental claims concerning plastic cigarette-filter waste are materially different from the smoking-related healthcare claims resolved by the MSA. Second, municipalities may pursue product-design and public-nuisance theories based on the separate costs imposed on public property, stormwater systems, waterways, and municipal services.
McIntyre Schnieders represents municipalities and other public entities in separate cigarette-filter litigation. The Baltimore decisions do not determine the outcome of those cases, but they provide meaningful guidance concerning issues that tobacco manufacturers have raised—or may raise—in similar litigation.
Selected Sources
McIntyre Schnieders was not counsel in the Baltimore matter. The firm represents public entities in separate cigarette-filter litigation. The Baltimore rulings do not determine the outcome of any other matter, and the underlying liability allegations remain subject to adjudication.