Bell v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co.

The federal district court for the Northern District of California also dismissed climate washing claims by consumers who purchased “Vuse” brand vaping products marketed as “carbon neutral.” The consumers challenged the validity of the third party-verified carbon offset credits on which the carbon neutrality claim relied. The court rejected the defendants’ claim that the plaintiffs lacked standing, finding that the consumers alleged a “pocketbook injury” caused by their purchase of vape products at a premium price based on the defendants’ carbon neutral marketing. The court found, however, that the plaintiffs failed to state claims under California’s consumer protection laws because they did not plausibly allege that a reasonable consumer would adopt the plaintiffs’ specific interpretation of carbon neutrality requiring no additional carbon emissions to the atmosphere and an “independent, primary-source verification of the carbon-offset project amounts.” In addition, the court found that the consumers failed to allege that defendants lacked a “reasonable basis” for the carbon neutrality claims and that the consumers’ complaint “fails to provide a sufficient factual basis to bridge the gap between a technical disagreement over a carbon-offset projects and a plausible claim of consumer deception.” In addition, the court found that the consumers failed to state a claim for breach of express warranty and that they abandoned their claims of breach of implied warranty and unjust enrichment. The court also concluded that it lacked personal jurisdiction over a United Kingdom-based investment holding company that was an indirect parent company of two of the defendants. The court found that the plaintiffs did not meet their burden of establishing that the subsidiaries were alter egos of the UK-based company and that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that jurisdictional discovery was necessary. The plaintiffs had voluntarily dismissed another defendant from the case at the end of January 2026. The court granted the consumers leave to amend their complaint as to claims the California consumer protection law and express warranty claims.

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.”