Dib v. Apple Inc.

The federal district court for the Northern District of California dismissed claims that Apple Inc. made false and misleading representations that its corporate global emissions since 2020 and certain Apple Watches were carbon neutral. The plaintiffs alleged that these representations relied on carbon credits that were insufficient to offset emissions to render Apple’s corporate emissions or its Apple Watches carbon neutral. The plaintiffs also alleged that Apple failed to retire sufficient carbon credits to fully offset Apple Watches’ emissions in 2024. The court ruled that the plaintiffs did not plausibly allege that Apple’s claims of carbon neutrality were false. The court found that the plaintiffs offered only “conclusory allegations” that Apple retired an insufficient number of credits and that the plaintiffs did not support their allegations that the credits purchased by Apple inflated or miscalculated the amount of carbon offset with allegations that they used a validated and verified methodology. The court granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint within 21 days.

Individuals who purchased Apple Watches that were advertised as “carbon neutral” products filed a climate washing class action against Apple Inc. in the federal district court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs alleged that the carbon neutrality claims were false and misleading because the claims were “predicated on the efficacy and legitimacy” of two carbon credit projects that would not result in actual carbon reductions: (1) a project to prevent deforestation on land in Kenya that the plaintiffs alleged had been protected from deforestation since 1983 and (2) a project in China that the plaintiffs alleged involved planting trees on land that was “already heavily forested.” The plaintiffs alleged that consumers had paid price premiums as a result of Apple’s misleading claims and had received products “whose environmental claims rely on ineffective and redundant offset projects that fail to provide genuine carbon reductions.” The complaint asserted violations of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law, Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and D.C.’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act, as well as claims for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief; compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages; restitution; injunctive relief barring Apple from labeling, advertising, or packaging the products as “carbon neutral”; and attorney fees and costs.