Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database

Dwyer v. Allbirds, Inc.

Geography
Year
2021
Document Type
Litigation
Part of

About this case

Filing year
2021
Status
Motion to dismiss granted.
Docket number
7:21-cv-05238
Court/admin entity
United StatesUnited States Federal CourtsS.D.N.Y.
Case category
State Law ClaimsOther Types of State Law Cases
Principal law
United StatesBreach of WarrantyUnited StatesState Law—FraudUnited StatesState Law—Unjust Enrichment
At issue
Class action lawsuit alleging that shoe company made misleading claims regarding the environmental impacts of its wool shoes as well as misleading animal welfare claims.
Topics
, ,

Documents

Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics 
Beta
04/18/2022
Motion to dismiss granted.
The federal district court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a lawsuit alleging that the shoe company Allbirds, Inc. made misleading claims regarding the environmental impacts of its wool shoes as well as misleading animal welfare claims. The plaintiff asserted claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, which prohibit deceptive acts or practices and false advertising. The court found that the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that the company’s statements were materially misleading. The court noted that the plaintiff took issue with tools and methodologies used by the company to calculate its product’s environmental impact—the life cycle assessment (LCA) used to estimate its products’ carbon footprint and the Higg Material Sustainability Index (Higg MSI) developed by the Sustainable Apparel Coalition—but did not allege that the calculations were wrong or that the company falsely described them. Nor did the plaintiff allege that a reasonable consumer would expect the company to use another methodology or that a reasonable consumer would be misled by the defendant’s use of the LCA tool or the Higg MSI. The court also rejected the contention that the defendant had improperly omitted information related to the wool industry’s methane emissions, land occupation, and eutrophication; the court found that the plaintiff “provides no basis to find it plausible that a reasonable consumer would expect that calculation to include non-atmospheric effects or effects from the farming that precedes the production of the raw materials.” The court also dismissed claims for breach of express warranty, fraud, and unjust enrichment on the same grounds and also because they were inadequately pleaded.
Decision
08/25/2021
First amended class action complaint filed.
Complaint

Summary

Class action lawsuit alleging that shoe company made misleading claims regarding the environmental impacts of its wool shoes as well as misleading animal welfare claims.

 Topics mentioned most in this case  
Beta

See how often topics get mentioned in this case and view specific passages of text highlighted in each document. Accuracy is not 100%. Learn more

Group
Topics
Policy instrument
Risk
Impacted group
Greenhouse gas
Economic sector