Environmental Working Group v. Tyson Foods, Inc.

Environmental Working Group v. Tyson Foods, Inc. ↗

2024-CAB-005935D.C. Super. Ct.2 entries

Filing Date

Type

Action Taken

Document

Summary

02/03/2025

Decision

Motion to dismiss denied.

View

The District of Columbia Superior Court denied Tyson Foods, Inc.’s (Tyson’s) motion to dismiss a greenwashing action brought under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) in which the plaintiff alleged that Tyson made false or misleading statements about its commitment to achieving net zero emissions by 2050 and by advertising a “climate-smart beef” program. The court concluded that it was fair to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Tyson and found that the plaintiff stated plausible claims for relief under the CPPA under the precedent in Earth Island Institute v. Coca-Cola Co. Regarding the net zero by 2050 claim, the court found that the plaintiff claimed a “fundamental mismatch between the allegedly minimal steps Tyson is taking and the actions that would be necessary to achieve its net-zero goal”; the court said this “vast discrepancy” paralleled the facts in Earth Island. Regarding the “climate-smart” beef program, the court found that the plaintiffs’ allegations—that Tyson did not define the term “climate-smart beef,” that the company did not release data to support the claim, and that the company sourced some of the beef from an industrial feedlot—were sufficient to show that the climate-smart beef representations might give consumers a misleading impression. The court also held that the First Amendment did not bar the plaintiff’s claims since the statements at issue were “clearly commercial speech.” But the court said that if the plaintiff was ultimately successful, the court would take care in fashioning relief so as not to infringe on Tyson’s First Amendment rights.

09/18/2024

Complaint

Complaint filed.

View

Environmental Working Group (EWG) filed a lawsuit against Tyson Foods, Inc.—“the second largest meat company in the United States and the world”—in D.C. Superior Court alleging that Tyson made false or misleading marketing claims regarding its commitments to reduce carbon emissions associated with its products. EWG alleged that Tyson “knowingly capitalizes” on consumers’ “well-intentioned preferences by advertising in numerous outlets a pledge to achieve ‘net-zero’ climate emissions by 2050 and marketing ‘climate-smart’ beef” but that the company “has no plan to achieve these goals and is taking no meaningful steps to do so.” EWG alleged that 85% of Tyson’s greenhouse gas emissions are from beef and that beef produced by Tyson would constitute “one of the most climate-intense foods on the market” even if “a slight reduction” in emissions from its “industrialized processes” were possible. EWG alleged, moreover, that it would not be possible to achieve substantial reductions in emissions from the company’s meat production—including nitrous oxide emissions from production of animal feed and enteric and manure management methane emissions—and that “the offsets required to zero out Tyson’s meat production emissions are both unfathomable and unavailable.” EWG alleged that even if the company reduced actual emissions by 75%, offsetting the remaining emissions would require between 30 and 48 million acres of preserved U.S. forest. EWG asserted that Tyson’s advertisements and representations regarding net-zero emissions and “climate-smart beef” violated the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act. EWG asked the court to enjoin Tyson from making the false or misleading statements and to require “redress of consumer misunderstanding about the climate impact of its industrial beef production.”