Apple prevails in US greenwashing suit over ‘carbon neutral’ claims

A U.S. district judge in Northern California has ruled that Apple Watch buyers who sued over marketing claims that described certain editions as “carbon neutral” have failed to support their complaint.

In the Feb. 20 decision, U.S. District Judge Noël Wise granted Apple’s motion to dismiss the class-action suit. The plaintiffs, though, have until March 13 to amend their argument and try again.

Among other things, the complaint challenged the credibility of the four nature-based projects that Apple uses to support its claim, saying it hasn’t produced enough carbon credits to cover the relevant sales. The plaintiffs also questioned the carbon credit calculations by nonprofit Verra, which certifies the offsets.

Wise’s decision considered previous greenwashing cases against Allbirds, Delta, Etsy and Nike to support her opinion that Apple acted in good faith and not with intent to deceive, as the suit suggested.

She wrote: “At this juncture, the court has a narrow question to consider: have plaintiffs plausibly alleged that Apple’s claims of carbon neutrality are false? Because the court finds that the answer to that question is no, Apple’s motion to dismiss is granted.”

Neither Apple nor lawyers for the plaintiffs responded to requests for comment.

Progress over perfection

The case law cited in Wise’s ruling provides companies with useful guidance on how to discuss the impact of carbon offset retirements in consumer messaging, said experts from environmental nonprofit EDF, which took the unprecedented step of filing an amicus brief on Apple’s behalf in May 2025. Greenwashing litigation has almost doubled since 2020, reaching about 2,700 cases in 2025.

“We were concerned about what would happen if there was a negative outcome,” said Jordan Faires, senior manager for net-zero initiatives at EDF. “It would tell companies that they can’t rely on third-party verification in their climate claims.” And that, EDF feared, would discourage companies from investing in climate action or participating in voluntary carbon markets.

“Companies should know that with due diligence and substantiation, these claims are defensible,” said Holly Pearen, lead counsel for carbon pricing at EDF. 

Regulatory guidance about what corporations can and cannot say about the environmental credentials of their products is fragmented around the world. The Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides are in sore need of an update. That was supposed to happen in early 2025, but companies are still waiting.

Meanwhile, negotiations are still ongoing for the European Union’s Green Claims Directive, although some nations, including France, have introduced their own interpretation.  

“It’s important to recognize that in the absence of detailed guidance from regulators, there isn’t clear guidance about how to do the right thing,” said Pearen. “These questions are being settled by case law.” 

Apple lost a similar greenwashing case last August in Germany. That suit was brought on different grounds, centering on the argument that the offsets used to support carbon neutral claims were guaranteed only until 2029, while a consumer could reasonably expect the projects to be supported until at least 2050, the year many companies use for their net-zero commitments.

Apple is already phasing out the use of certain language, such as “carbon neutral,” ahead of any new EU regulations.