Bell v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co.

The federal district court for the Northern District of California also dismissed climate washing claims by consumers who purchased “Vuse” brand vaping products marketed as “carbon neutral.” The consumers challenged the validity of the third party-verified carbon offset credits on which the carbon neutrality claim relied. The court rejected the defendants’ claim that the plaintiffs lacked standing, finding that the consumers alleged a “pocketbook injury” caused by their purchase of vape products at a premium price based on the defendants’ carbon neutral marketing. The court found, however, that the plaintiffs failed to state claims under California’s consumer protection laws because they did not plausibly allege that a reasonable consumer would adopt the plaintiffs’ specific interpretation of carbon neutrality requiring no additional carbon emissions to the atmosphere and an “independent, primary-source verification of the carbon-offset project amounts.” In addition, the court found that the consumers failed to allege that defendants lacked a “reasonable basis” for the carbon neutrality claims and that the consumers’ complaint “fails to provide a sufficient factual basis to bridge the gap between a technical disagreement over a carbon-offset projects and a plausible claim of consumer deception.” In addition, the court found that the consumers failed to state a claim for breach of express warranty and that they abandoned their claims of breach of implied warranty and unjust enrichment. The court also concluded that it lacked personal jurisdiction over a United Kingdom-based investment holding company that was an indirect parent company of two of the defendants. The court found that the plaintiffs did not meet their burden of establishing that the subsidiaries were alter egos of the UK-based company and that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that jurisdictional discovery was necessary. The plaintiffs had voluntarily dismissed another defendant from the case at the end of January 2026. The court granted the consumers leave to amend their complaint as to claims the California consumer protection law and express warranty claims.