People v. JBS USA Food Co.

The New York Attorney General and JBS USA Food Company and JBS USA Food Company Holdings (together, JBS USA) entered into an assurance of discontinuance that resolved the Attorney General’s lawsuit alleging that the “Net Zero by 2040” advertising campaign of JBS USA, a meat products producer, was false and misleading in violation of New York State consumer protection laws. After a New York trial court dismissed the case without prejudice in January 2025, the Attorney General issued an investigative subpoena and prepared but did not file an amended complaint supported by additional evidence. In the assurance of discontinuance, JBS USA agreed to remove or revise existing U.S. consumer-facing published statements that concern Net Zero by 2040, consistent with guidance from the Attorney General, including by presenting Net Zero by 2040 as a “goal” instead of a “pledge” and by noting specific steps or actions that JBS USA is taking in cases where the company represents that JBS USA is “taking steps” or “taking real action.” JBS USA also committed to annual internal review of its consumer-facing statements regarding the Net Zero by 2040 goal for the next three years. In addition, JBS USA will pay $1.1 million to Cornell University’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences’ New York Soil Health and Resiliency Program for the purpose of supporting climate-smart agriculture, subject to approval by the University’s Gift Acceptance Committee and an agreement between the Attorney General and the University for appointment of an Attorney General representative to advise on the Program’s work. If the Gift Acceptance Committee does not approve JBS USA, the company will instead make the payment to the Council on the Environment of New York City (d/b/a GrowNYC) Greenmarket and Wholesale Programs’ farmer technical assistance initiatives for the purpose of supporting climate-smart agriculture.

The New York Supreme Court granted a motion by the beef producer companies JBS USA Food Company and JBS USA Food Company Holdings (JBS USA) to dismiss the New York State Attorney General’s climate washing action to the extent of granting the Attorney General leave to file an amended complaint. The Attorney General alleged that JBS USA violated the New York General Business Law by making misleading and unsubstantiated claims regarding its commitment to climate goals, including achievement of net zero emissions by 2040. From the bench, the court granted the Attorney General 90 days to file an amended complaint that would, among other things, “articulate … more clearly” the basis for subjecting JBS USA to jurisdiction in New York. The court also suggested during oral argument that the complaint needed “a clearer statement of how the statute was violated” even after JBS USA changed its language to refer to “ambition to achieve” net zero rather than “commitment to achieve.”

New York State Attorney General Letitia James filed a complaint in New York Supreme Court against JBS USA Food Company and JBS USA Food Company Holdings (JBS USA) alleging that the defendants—the “largest producer of beef products in the world”—made unsubstantiated and misleading environmental marketing claims about their commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in violation of New York State’s consumer protection statutes. The complaint alleged that beef production contributes significantly to climate change through emissions of greenhouse gases and through land-use changes that reduce or eliminate carbon sinks, and that the top five meat and dairy corporations are responsible for more annual greenhouse gas emissions than ExxonMobil, Shell, or BP, individually, with JBS USA and its parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates (the JBS Group) being the top contributor. The complaint alleged that JBS USA knows that demand for its products will decrease if consumers view them as unsustainable and harmful to the environment and that the JBS Group had directed representations regarding its sustainability to New York consumers, including representations regarding the “Net Zero by 2040” commitment it made in 2021. New York alleged that self-regulating advertising industry groups had found this claim to be misleading. New York also contended that the JBS Group’s greenhouse gas emissions calculations have not accounted for Scope 3 emissions resulting from Amazon deforestation and other land use changes in its supply chain and that the Net Zero by 2040 commitment also was misleading based on the JBS Group’s plans to increase demand for its products. The complaint requested that the court enjoin JBS USA from violating the consumer protection statutes; order the defendants to disgorge profits traceable to these violations; grant civil penalties; perform independent audits of consumer-facing publications; and pay the State’s costs and attorneys’ fees.