Dorris v. Danone Waters of America

–

The federal district court for the Southern District of New York granted a partial motion for reconsideration of its January 2024 decision allowing some climate washing claims to proceed against the producer of Evian Natural Spring bottled water. The plaintiffs alleged that they paid a premium for the water based on the misleading labeling of the product as “carbon neutral.” In its January 2024 decision, the court said it had taken the position that “carbon neutral” was “an ambiguous term that lacked precision and could plausibly mislead a reasonable consumer” and that it would be “premature at this stage to determine as a matter of law that a reasonable consumer could not be misled.” The court originally allowed Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A, California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, and fraud claims to proceed. On reconsideration, the court first found under Chapter 93A that in the absence of an “industry convention or governing regulation that provides assurances to consumers about the veracity or clarity” of the “carbon neutral” label on the front of the product, a reasonable consumer would be expected to learn more about the representation and to consult additional information. The court also presumed on reconsideration that “carbon neutral” was not a “general environmental benefit claim” that the Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides warn against and therefore found that the Green Guides did not support the conclusion that “carbon neutral” was a misleading claim. Under the CLRA, the court found that its original decision overlooked “two key decisions that would have altered its conclusion that it could not determine as a matter of law that a reasonable consumer would not be misled” by the labeling. On reconsideration, the court found that there were “context clues” on the Evian product and its packaging “that should have put Plaintiffs on notice that their interpretation of ‘carbon neutral’ was not reasonable,” including that “there is no such thing as a ‘carbon zero’ product”; that the package prominently disclosed that Evian sourced its water from the French Alps; that a “Carbon Trust” logo on the back of the product should have put a reasonable consumer on notice that the logo “meant something about the product in relation to its ‘carbon neutral’ claim”; and that there was link adjacent to the Carbon Trust logo to take consumers to an explanation of what “carbon neutral” meant. The court also dismissed the breach of express warranty claim based on its conclusion that there was no misrepresentation and the unjust enrichment claim because there was no underlying fraud, coercion, or request. In addition, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to properly plead motive for their fraud claim and instead relied only on “generalized motives of increased sales and profits.” In addition, the court found that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently plead that the defendants knowingly made misrepresentations at the point of sale in support of the fraud claim. The court dismissed the five claims without prejudice and granted the plaintiffs leave to amend, setting a deadline of December 13, 2024 for an amended complaint.

The federal district court for the Southern District of New York allowed consumer plaintiffs to proceed with claims based on their allegations that the defendant manufacturer made false and misleading claims that evian water is “carbon neutral.” The court concluded that it could not determine as a matter of law that the term “carbon neutral” did not have the capacity to mislead. The court found that the term was “a technical word not within an average consumer’s common parlance and carrying multiple meanings” and that it was plausible that the term could mislead a reasonable consumer. The court also found that “carbon neutral” was the type of “general environmental benefit claim” that the Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides warn against; that the plaintiffs’ allegations regarding consumer confusion were sufficient; and that the defendant “expects too much” from consumers when it directs them beyond the label to websites to learn what “carbon neutral” means. The court therefore declined to dismiss claims under the Massachusetts consumer protection statute and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The court also found that the plaintiffs’ allegations that they paid a price premium based on the alleged misrepresentation was sufficient to allege an injury. In addition, the court allowed the plaintiffs to proceed with a fraud claim, and with breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment claims under California law. The court dismissed claims under Sections 349 and 350 of New York’s General Business Law without prejudice because the plaintiffs did not allege they were deceived in New York. The court also dismissed an implied warranty claim under California law and an express warranty claim under Massachusetts law without prejudice.