Berrin v. Delta Air Lines Inc.

The federal district court for the Central District of California found that a consumer plaintiff’s addition of allegations that she was a “longstanding and loyal Delta customer” who intended to purchase flights from the company in the future were sufficient to establish standing for claims under California’s False Advertising and Unfair Competition Laws. The court previously dismissed claims seeking injunctive relief under these laws because the plaintiff did not allege an intent to purchase future flights. In allowing the claims to proceed, the court found that the plaintiff “sufficiently alleged a particularized injury because refraining from purchasing future Delta flights, notwithstanding her desire to continue purchasing Delta flights and being an environmentally concerned consumer, is an injury that affects her in a harmful and personal way.” The specific alleged injury was “her inability to rely on the validity of Delta’s representations that it is a carbon-neutral airline, despite her intention to continue flying Delta.” The court further found that this injury was actual and imminent and that a favorable ruling ordering Delta to make truthful representations regarding its environmental impact would redress the alleged injury.

The federal district court for the Central District of California held that the Airline Deregulation Act did not preempt claims that Delta Air Lines, Inc.’s allegedly false carbon-neutrality representations violate California laws. The court also found that the plaintiff adequately stated a claim under California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act with allegations that vendors of voluntary carbon credits based their certifications on fraudulent projections of carbon reduction and that Delta either knew or should have known that the certifications were not accurate. The court granted dismissal of claims under California’s False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law with leave to amend, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish standing for injunctive relief under those laws because she did not allege any intent to purchase flights from Delta in the future.

A California resident who had purchased flights from Delta Air Lines, Inc. (Delta) filed a class action complaint in the federal district court for the Central District of California alleging that Delta “grossly misrepresent[ed] the total environmental impact of its business operations” by marketing itself as a “carbon-neutral” airline. The plaintiff alleged that this representation was based on Delta’s participation in a voluntary carbon offsets market in which investors in “green projects” such as renewable energy or prevention of deforestation receive “carbon offsets.” The plaintiff alleged that she had discovered that any representation that carbon offsets purchased by Delta had entirely offset the carbon emissions from the company’s operations were “manifestly and provably false” because of “foundational issues” with the market, including “inaccurate accounting”; “non-additional effects on worldwide carbon levels due to the vendors crediting offsets for projects that would have occurred with or without offset market investment”; non-immediate speculative emissions reductions that will at best occur over decades, despite crediting purchasers with the sum of those projected offsets”; and “impermanent projects subject to disease, natural disasters, and human intervention.” The plaintiff alleged that she would not have purchased Delta’s services or would have paid substantially less if she had understood that the representations of carbon neutrality were false. She asserted claims under California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law.