Apple Accused of Misleading Consumers With 'Carbon Neutral' Claims

[MacRumors]

Apple is facing a new lawsuit from consumers who allege that its claim that the Apple Watch Series 9, SE, and Ultra 2 are "carbon neutral" is misleading, Reuters reports.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the lawsuit argues that Apple misrepresented the environmental impact of these three Apple Watch models by relying on carbon offset projects that did not provide genuine carbon reductions. The plaintiffs claim they would not have bought their devices or would have paid less had they known this.

The complaint centers on two carbon offset projects Apple uses to support its carbon neutrality efforts: Kenya's Chyulu Hills Project and China's Guinan Project. According to the lawsuit, both projects fail to meet the criteria for additional carbon reduction because the land in question was already protected or heavily forested before Apple's involvement.

In both cases, the carbon reductions would have occurred regardless of Apple's involvement or the projects' existence. Because Apple's carbon neutrality claims are predicated on the efficacy and legitimacy of these projects, Apple's carbon neutrality claims are false and misleading.

The plaintiffs argue that because these locations were already managed under conservation protections for several decades or naturally heavily forested, Apple's financial support did not lead to a reduction in carbon emissions beyond what would have occurred naturally.

Apple introduced the first carbon-neutral Apple Watch models in September 2023 as part of its broader environmental initiatives. The marketing materials and packaging included a new green "carbon neutral" label. The company has set a goal of making its entire business carbon neutral by 2030.

The plaintiffs cite a study by the National Retail Federation and IBM, stating that 70% of U.S. and Canadian consumers consider environmental sustainability an important factor in purchasing decisions. Unspecified damages and an injunction to prevent Apple from marketing the Apple Watch Series 9, SE, and Ultra 2 as carbon neutral are being sought.

Article Link: Apple Accused of Misleading Consumers With 'Carbon Neutral' Claims

 

[turbineseaplane]

Apple overstating their "carbon neutral" efforts for image and marketing purposes?

 

[getoffmylawn]

Carbon offsets are used by a number of companies, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

[Tripps9000]

Okay all I can say is 🤣😂😆🤪

 

[timber]

This lawsuit is not worth its weight in carbon.

 

[wanha]

"The plaintiffs claim they would not have bought their devices or would have paid less had they known this."

I call bs on that, unless there's no more than 3 plaintiffs 🤣

That said, I'm all for inaccurate marketing claims getting exposed, so I guess I'm good with this lawsuit going forward and I hope Apple gets their a$$ handed to them in court (assuming they did, in fact, mislead customers on this)

 

[SteveJUAE]

So no Green Apples today

 

[StuBeck]

Its pretty hilarious that anyone would think this was worthwhile. Their defining method of reducing waste is not to allow upgrading of devices, but to simply replace the device entirely and "fix waste" by recycling the device. That doesn't hold water.

anyone who wants to reduce their carbon footprint won't be buying a device from a company with their policies. This is a nothing lawsuit.

 

[WarmWinterHat]

Carbon offsets are used by a number of companies, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

The issue isn't that they used offsets, it's that the offsets were already protected and forested areas. Nothing changed and no new carbon acquisition has or will be happening.

 

[0049190]

Carbon offsetting should be banned. It gives consumers a false sense of how carbon neutral the products they buy are and provides no incentive for companies to innovate and provide genuinely carbon neutral products.

 

[EightyEight]

It's not nice to fool Mother Nature!

 

[Mousse]

This lawsuit is not worth its weight in carbon.

Few carats of diamonds worth a tidy sum. Just saying...😇

 

[mansplains]

It’s all a con anyway, ripping companies off in the name of a false sense of public morality.

 

[dbc34]

This lawsuit is not worth its weight in carbon.

Amen! Give me freaking break.

 

[sbrhwkp3]

Tale as old as time. The very same people you try to appease will drag your ass down the moment they have an opportunity to do so.

 

[t0rqx]

It's not nice to fool Mother Nature!

she got ousted by Apple with FineWovenGate.

 

[WarmWinterHat]

Carbon offsetting should be banned. It gives consumers a false sense of how carbon neutral the products they buy are and provides no incentive for companies to innovate and provide genuinely carbon neutral products.

Offsets can work if implemented properly (there needs to be a fixed national cap), as they did with sulfur dioxide emissions, but there isn't and it's mostly fodder for marketing.

 

[Rychiar]

no consumers care at all about carbon neutral. this is just a cash grab

 

[Johnstrass2]

Shakespeare wrote it best:

Henry VI, Part II, act IV, Scene II, Line 73

 

[GMShadow]

The plaintiffs cite a study by the National Retail Federation and IBM, stating that 70% of U.S. and Canadian consumers consider environmental sustainability an important factor in purchasing decisions.

No, they don't. Most people just don't say "I buy the worst thing possible because I want to burn down a rainforest." The vast majority say the socially acceptable thing, and then don't factor it in at all.

 

[QCassidy352]

good lord, some people have got way too much time on their hands.

 

[SamuelW]

How much carbon is being expended in this suit, paper wastage, lawyers hoo-hah, court energy usage ? This seems a carbon heavy-suit fueled by cow chips.

 

[strayts]

I mean, we all knew that claiming carbon neutrality for products that will eventually become e-waste is ridiculous, right?

 

[Timo_Existencia]

Leaving aside all of those who come in with their own opinions on Apple or Climate Change or Carbon itself, the only real question here is whether these particular carbon offsets are legitmate. And if you haven't done the research, either way, opinions on the matter don't count for much, especially in a court of law.

 

[getoffmylawn]

The issue isn't that they used offsets, it's that the offsets were already protected and forested areas. Nothing changed and no new carbon acquisition would or will be happening.

That's kind of the nature of a carbon offset...