Bell v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co.

Three California residents who had bought Vuse-brand vaporizer devices and consumable products filed a lawsuit against the products’ manufacturers in the federal district court for the Northern District of California alleging that the defendants made false and misleading representations about the products’ carbon neutrality. The plaintiffs alleged that the representation of carbon neutrality depended on the offsetting of emissions through the purchase of carbon offset credits from reforestation projects. The complaint alleged that 84.72% of the carbon credits were allocated to four reforestation projects in Uruguay and China that did not provide “genuine, additional carbon reductions” either because the tree planting would have occurred without the carbon credits’ financial incentive or because the forests faced “negligible deforestation risks.” The plaintiffs contended that defendants had an obligation to independently verify that the projects they invested in met additionality requirements. The plaintiffs alleged they suffered economic harm because they paid a price premium based on the misleading claims. The complaint asserted claims under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and False Advertising Law as well as causes of action for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and unjust enrichment. The relief sought by the plaintiffs included compensatory, statutory, treble, and punitive damages and an order enjoining the defendants from labeling, advertising, or packaging the vape products as “carbon neutral.”