Sept 25 (Reuters) - California's lawsuit on Monday

accusing Exxon of fueling global plastic waste pollution

by misleading the public about the limitations of recycling is

the latest in a line of recent cases based on a centuries-old

legal theory known as public nuisance. Here is a look at how

public nuisance claims work, how such claims have fared and what

it might mean for California's effort.

WHAT IS PUBLIC NUISANCE?

A public nuisance claim is one that can be brought against

defendants based on behavior that interferes with a right that

belongs to the general public, rather than to an individual.

Frequently cited examples include an obstacle blocking a public

road, pollution in a public waterway or a factory that emits a

noxious gas.

Unlike personal injury cases, public nuisance cases, which

are often brought by local governments, do not seek damages to

compensate plaintiffs for an injury. Instead, they seek to make

the party responsible for the nuisance pay to abate, or fix, the

condition. The amount of money the defendant must pay depends on

the cost of abatement.

HOW DOES CALIFORNIA'S LAWSUIT FIT IN?

California's case is one of many recent lawsuits that try to

apply the concept of public nuisance more broadly than it has

been used historically. Rather than accusing Exxon of directly

polluting public land or water, the state says the company

deceived the public for decades into believing plastic recycling

was much more effective than it is, encouraging a widespread

"throw away lifestyle" of disposable plastic products.

The state says that, in turn, led to more widespread plastic

pollution, which can be traced directly to Exxon's conduct. It

is seeking to make Exxon pay the cost of abating the pollution,

with the amount yet to be determined.

Exxon has denied the allegations, arguing that recycling

works and that California itself failed to correct problems in

its recycling system.

California and others have previously used a similar theory

in suing Exxon and other oil companies for allegedly covering up

their own knowledge about fossil fuels and climate change. Many

of those have been tied up for years in legal battles over which

courts have jurisdiction to hear them.

HOW HAVE OTHER RECENT PUBLIC NUISANCE LAWSUITS FARED?

Many recent public nuisance lawsuits have not been tested at

trial, but some have ended in large settlements. Notably, opioid

drug manufacturers, distributors and pharmacies have settled

with state and local governments nationwide for close to $50

billion over claims they fueled an epidemic of addiction and

overdose deaths.

However, a federal judge rejected public nuisance claims in

one opioid case, brought by a West Virginia city and county,

that did go to trial. The case is currently on appeal.

Broad public nuisance claims have had some success in

California. San Francisco won its public nuisance opioid case

against Walgreens, which then agreed to settle for $230

million last year rather than pursue an appeal.

The state's highest court in 1997 ruled that gang activity

could be a public nuisance, and in 2017 ruled that three

companies had created a public nuisance with lead paint used

throughout the state and must pay to abate it.

There are limits, however; a state court judge in June

rejected public nuisance claims by school districts accusing

social media companies of encouraging addiction among their

students.

HAVE ANY SIMILAR LAWSUITS BEEN FILED OVER PLASTIC POLLUTION?

Yes. New York last year brought a public nuisance lawsuit

accusing PepsiCo ( PEP ) of fueling plastic pollution with its

single-use plastic bottles, caps and wrappers. U.S.

environmental group Earth Island Institute in 2020 brought

similar claims against Pepsi and others including Coca-Cola

and Nestle, which a judge earlier this year

allowed to go forward. The lawsuits remain pending.

CAN CALIFORNIA'S LAWSUIT GO FORWARD IF THE COURT REJECTS THE

PUBLIC NUISANCE THEORY?

Yes. In addition to its public nuisance claim, California is

bringing claims under the state's unfair business practices,

false advertising and environmental pollution laws. Even without

a public nuisance claim, the lawsuit could bring in significant

damages if successful.