failure to disclose environmental risks in MTBE data sheets not actionable

In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (“MTBE”) Products
Liability Litig., 2021 WL 3371938, No. 1:00-1898, MDL 1358, No. 14 Civ. 6228
(VSB) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2021)This MDL litigation centers on
contamination—actual or threatened—of groundwater from various defendants’ use
of the gasoline additive MTBE and/or tertiary butyl alcohol, a product formed
by the breakdown of MTBE in water.

I will focus on the court’s holding that the commonwealth of
Pennsylvania failed to make specific allegations of deceptive and misleading
conduct that are actionable under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL).

Pennsylvania alleged, that in connection with the marketing,
distribution, and sale of their products, certain defendants prepared and
distributed material safety data sheets (MSDSs), which are documents used by
manufacturers of hazardous materials to address OSHA hazard communication
requirements. The relevant defendants allegedly knew that MTBE was highly
soluble in water and mobile, and that MTBE contamination of water was therefore
difficult to remediate. Despite this, they published MSDSs between 1986 and
2006 that suggested that MTBE gasoline could be handled just like traditional
gasoline, according to the same standard of care. However, internal documents
acknowledged, e.g., that ethers “are much more water soluble than hydrocarbons
and will have a tendency to dissolve in – groundwater if allowed to leak or
spill” and that they are more difficult to clean up than non-oxygenated
gasoline. Thus, the document continued, “facilities handling ethers and
ether/gasoline blends must be designed and operated to insure (1) low
likelihood for spills and leaks, (2) early detection of leaks when they occur,
and (3) rapid repair and cleanup when leaks are found.” And an e-mail to Shell
Oil from its hydrologist detailed the risks to groundwater posed by MTBE and
cautioned that “MTBE and similar oxygenates should not be used at all in areas
where groundwater is a potential drinking water supply. If it is used,
engineering design and site operations … should be carefully developed to
minimize the potential for a release.”

But in public statements, the relevant defendants allegedly
promoted MTBE gasoline as “clean burning gasoline good for the environment,”
failed to disclose “the significant environmental dangers that MTBE and MTBE
gasoline posed to the public and private water supplies in the event of a spill
or leak,” and “disparage[d] ethanol oxygenated gasoline.”

A UTPCPL claim may only be based on an omission if the maker
of the statements has a duty to disclose, and Pennsylvania didn’t sufficiently
allege such a duty. Nor was there a clear statement in the MSDSs that MTBE
gasoline “could be handled according to the same standard of care as ordinary
gasoline.” Nor did the Commonwealth provide “any context or explanation to
suggest that the text could mislead a downstream purchaser or customer into
believing that regular gasoline and MTBE gasoline could be handled in the same
manner.” The Commonwealth didn’t compare the MSDSs for regular gasoline to
support its argument for implied falsity. “Indeed, the example MSDSs advise the
handler to ensure the MTBE gasoline does not enter the water supply; the
Commonwealth has not provided any allegations or context as to why these
warnings were insufficient or misleading.”

At the time of briefing, there was also an issue of whether
the MSDSs were “advertising,” but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court subsequently
held that “subsection (v) … encompass[es] activities other than
‘advertising,’ ” and that a statement need not have impacted a purchasing
decision to be actionable. Commonwealth by Shapiro v. Golden Gate Nat’l Senior
Care LLC, 194 A.3d 1010, 1028 (Pa. 2018) (accepting allegations that a nursing
home made representations to individuals after they had become residents of
facility about “the extent and quality of services to be provided”).

What about public statements about ethanol and MTBE? An
allegedly disparaging ad placed by the American Petroleum Institute disparaging
ethanol as “Government Gas” was protected by Noerr-Pennington: it
“exhorts readers to contact their legislators and ask them to vote against
specific amendments to the Clean Air Act.” It wasn’t relevant that this served
API’s commercial interests, or that it allegedly contained misrepresentations;
the First Amendment still precluded liability. There was nothing to distinguish
UTPCPL “from the many Pennsylvania state law causes of action that courts have
found to be subject to Noerr-Pennington. Moreover, courts have applied the
doctrine to consumer protection statutes in other states.” This was not commercial
speech: the Supreme Court specifically held in Noerr that “a publicity
campaign to influence governmental action falls clearly into the category of
political activity.”

What about statements to newspapers about “cleaner”
gasoline? E.g., “[T]he future is in gasolines, in fuels that are more
environmentally compatible”; Shell “came to the conclusion that the customer
… really wanted an environmentally enhanced fuel”; the MTBE blend was “an
important step in the right direction for cleaner air” that it “reflect[ed]
Shell’s commitment to make environmental considerations a priority in
development of our new products and processes.” These weren’t false
representations of fact about MTBE or ethanol, or disparaging ethanol—they were
vague, nonactionable puffery.

from Blogger

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s