Challenges to Corporate Environmental Claims
- Kristof Vanderwegen
- Jul 4
- 4 min read
Consumer Deception in the California Climate Lawsuit and Apple Watch Class Action
This articlet outlines the key consumer deception issues in two high-profile cases:
The California lawsuit against major oil companies, and
The class action lawsuit against Apple regarding misleading environmental claims for the Apple Watch.
The analysis examines two landmark consumer deception cases with significant implications for environmental marketing. The California oil majors case establishes potential liability for long-term climate misinformation, while the Apple Watch case challenges carbon neutrality claims based on questionable offsets. Both cases highlight deceptive business practices that misled consumers about environmental and sustainability claims, causing financial and societal harm. Both cases also demonstrate heightened scrutiny of environmental claims and the growing legal risks of greenwashing. Organisations should review their environmental marketing, carbon offset verification processes, and disclosure practices to mitigate potential similar liability risks.
California v Oil Majors Case
The lawsuit, brought by the California Attorney General, accuses major oil companies, including ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP, and ConocoPhillips, accusing them of decades-long deception regarding climate change. The case alleges that these companies knowingly misled the public and policymakers about the dangers of fossil fuel use, thereby delaying necessary climate action and increasing the costs of mitigation and adaptation.
Key Deception Issues
Disinformation on Climate Change
The oil majors had scientific evidence since at least the 1960s that fossil fuel emissions contribute significantly to climate change.
Instead of warning the public, they engaged in a coordinated misinformation campaign to downplay or outright deny the risks.
Misleading Environmental Marketing
The companies falsely presented themselves as leaders in sustainability, despite continuing to expand fossil fuel extraction.
They marketed oil and gas products as "clean" or "low-carbon," misleading consumers into believing they were environmentally responsible choices.
Public Nuisance and Failure to Warn
The complaint asserts tort-based causes of action, including public nuisance and failure to warn, based on parallels to tobacco and opioid litigation where companies withheld known harms.
The lawsuit argues that the oil majors' actions directly contributed to climate disasters in California, including wildfires, droughts, and flooding.
The companies failed to warn consumers about the full impact of their products, similar to legal precedents in tobacco and opioid cases.
Consumer and Government Financial Impact
California taxpayers and consumers have borne the financial burden of climate change related disasters, while oil companies profited from deception.
The state seeks damages for climate-related adaptation costs and demands accountability for false marketing practices.
Practical Implications
Historical knowledge of environmental harm creates heightened disclosure duty
"Clean" or "low-carbon" descriptors require substantiation and qualification
Public statements must align with internal research and understanding
Financial harm to consumers and taxpayers creates basis for damages
Apple Watch Class Action
The class action lawsuit against Apple challenges the company’s claims that certain Apple Watch models (Series 9, Ultra 2 and SE 2nd Gen) are “carbon neutral.” Plaintiffs argue that Apple’s carbon neutrality claims are misleading because they rely on questionable carbon offset programs that do not provide real environmental benefits.
Key Deception Issues
False Carbon Neutrality Claims
Apple marketed these smartwatches as the company’s first-ever "carbon neutral" products, which influenced consumer purchasing decisions.
The lawsuit alleges that Apple’s carbon neutrality claims are based on offsetting emissions rather than actual emissions reduction.
Questionable Carbon Offsets
Apple’s primary carbon offset projects (Chyulu Hills Project in Kenya and Guinan Project in China) do not provide additional carbon reductions.
The Chyulu Hills Project claims to prevent deforestation in an area that has been legally protected since 1983, meaning no new carbon reductions result from Apple’s involvement.
Plaintiffs allege that the Guinan Project involved already-forested land, undermining additonality, though Apple maintains the legitimacy of its carbon accounting methods.
Misleading Market Differentiation
Apple uses environmental claims to justify premium pricing for its smartwatches.
Consumers who prioritise sustainability paid more for these products under the false belief they were making an environmentally responsible choice.
Violations of Consumer Protection Laws
The lawsuit alleges breaches of state consumer protection laws, including false advertising and unfair business practices.
Apple's misleading claims distort the competitive market and reduce transparency in sustainability efforts.
Practical Implications
Carbon neutrality claims require rigorous verification of offsets
Additionality is essential for legitimate carbon offset claims
Premium pricing based on sustainability creates heightened scrutiny
Environmental claims are subject to same substantiation requirements as other marketing claims
Conclusion
The cases examined in this article reveal common patterns in how environmental marketing claims can create legal exposure. To help organisations apply these insights, we've developed a practical self-assessment framework on the following page. This tool allows you to evaluate your current practices against key risk factors identified in these landmark cases. Whether your organisation has well-established sustainability communications or is just beginning to develop environmental claims, this assessment can help identify potential vulnerabilities and opportunities for strengthening your approach. Effective environmental marketing requires ongoing evaluation as standards and expectations continue to evolve in this dynamic area.
Both cases in this memorandum reveal systemic consumer deception related to environmental claims. The oil majors misled the public about the dangers of fossil fuels, contributing to climate change while profiting from continued fossil fuel dependence. Apple, on the other hand, engaged in "greenwashing" by overstating its environmental achievements, deceiving environmentally conscious consumers.
The legal outcomes of these cases could set important precedents for corporate accountability in environmental marketing. In both cases, the courts will assess whether a reasonable consumer could be misled, the standard commonly applied under U.S. consumer protection statutes. Businesses must be held responsible for the truthfulness of their sustainability claims to ensure consumers make informed decisions based on accurate information. The self-assessment framework on the following page provides a starting point for organisations seeking to align their environmental communications with these emerging standards of accountability.
While our analysis so far has focused on the pitfalls and legal consequences of greenwashing, many companies are successfully navigating these challenges through authentic sustainability practices. Our forthcoming article will examine organisations that have aligned environmental claims with implementation, creating genuine business value while avoiding the consumer backlash and litigation risks detailed in this series. These success stories demonstrate that rigorous verification, governance integration, and transparent communication not only mitigate risks but can create competitive advantage in an increasingly sustainability-conscious marketplace.
DISCLAIMER: This memorandum provides informational analysis of ongoing litigation and does not constitute legal advice. Case information is presented based on publicly available sources and may change as litigation proceeds. Organisations should not rely on this document for compliance guidance without consulting qualified legal counsel. No attorney-client relationship is created by this document, and the author assumes no liability for decisions based on this analysis.
Comments