Salguero v. Mondelez International, Inc.

The federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed with prejudice a consumer’s lawsuit asserting that the manufacturer, marketer, and seller of the Zbar energy snack bar deceptively labeled the product as “climate neutral certified.” The court concluded that because a third-party organization (Change Climate Project) had in fact certified the product as carbon neutral, the plaintiff’s claims under California consumer protection statutes failed, as did her breach of warranty and unjust enrichment claims. The court noted that the plaintiff had not alleged that the defendant violated Change Climate Project’s standards or that the Change Climate Project certification on the packaging was inaccurate.

A climate washing lawsuit filed in the federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois alleged that the manufacturer and distributor of Clif Kid products—“an explicitly child-centered version of the traditional Clif Bar”—made deceptive and untrue claims regarding the products’ environmental benefits, including by choosing “to emblazon the Product’s packaging with a representation that it is ‘Climate Neutral.’” The plaintiff alleged that reasonable consumers would believe that this label meant that manufacturing and marketing of the product “does not exert a negative impact on the environment nor contribute to climate change or degradation.” The plaintiff alleged that, in fact, manufacturing and transportation of the Clif Kid products result in “substantial” annual greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to the emissions of 12,596 gasoline-powered automobiles. The complaint also alleged that the defendant’s reliance on the purchase of carbon offsets and credits to achieve carbon neutrality was “unjustified” due to “fundamental flaws in the offsetting market and the kinds of projects in which Defendant purportedly invests.” The plaintiff alleged that she and similarly situated consumers would not have purchased the Clif Kid products or would have paid “substantially less” had they known the climate neutral claim was not true. The complaint alleged that the climate neutral claim was the type of “unqualified, general environmental claim for which Defendant cannot substantiate all reasonable interpretations” that the Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides warn companies against making. The complaint asserted claims of breach of express warranty, violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law, and unjust enrichment. The relief sought included declaratory relief; compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages; restitution; and attorney fees and costs.