Apple Accused of Misleading Consumers With 'Carbon Neutral' Claims

[bousozoku]

Does the court reimburse the defendant for lawyer fees from the plaintiff? If everyone is going to file a lawsuit then corporates (and others) will go bankrupt due to legal battles?

I would see adverts for lawyers on buses and trains when going to work. There are ambulance chasers everywhere in the USA. I'm just surprised that they don't have bloody noses.

 

[I7guy]

So the plaintiffs arguments are based on carbon offsets being bogus? Did I get that right?

 

[StuBeck]

Keyword in your sentence is “want”.
Everyone *wants* to reduce their carbon footprint.
Most people can’t just decide not to use a phone though, or decide not to use a computer, no matter the company.

They have complete choice of what they buy. A company that until very recently actively blocked repairs isn't someone those people should be interested in. Their are modular phones out there, and other companies that make much easier to repair devices.

 

[bousozoku]

So the plaintiffs arguments are based on carbon offsets being bogus? Did I get that right?

I still remember looking at the articles here and seeing that The Sierra Club was happy with the work Apple was doing to reduce harm to the environment.

The trivialities are ever present and open to debate.

 

[Felix Lyran]

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

There is nothing surprising about this. Green colonialism produces PR value, but it's not just PR value that drives large corporations to do this sort of thing.

 

[Felix Lyran]

No. These lawsuits tie up the courts for years and do little to stop apples greed. Nor would I want them to stop legal activities.

It doesn’t do that either.

It doesn’t do that either.

Virtue signaling is about talking to look good. Apple has a genuine interest in being environmentally friendly and neutral and has procedures in place to accomplish that.

Everyone has a genuine interest in being environmentally friendly. The incentive structures under capitalism obscure that interest, particularly for large corporations. So while these types of proceedings may not succeed in curtailing Apple's greed, or any other corporation's greed, they are one of the only means available to the general public to hold them accountable for the consequences of that greed.

 

[BC2009]

What is the carbon footprint of bringing this lawsuit to court. I sure hope none of the court documents are printed on paper. I sure hope nobody used transportation to go to a court house to file.

This is an excuse for lawyers to make a bunch of money on a class action lawsuit.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

Carbon offsets feel like you are allowed to beat your wife if you stop another man from beating his wife, because you did not cause a net increase in the number of beaten wives.

 

[svish]

Interesting to hear about this lawsuit. Wonder how long this lawsuit continue on for. Hopefully it is settled soon.

 

[macduke]

I cant wait to get a digital gift card for $3.19 for my Apple Watch Ultra 2 in the year 2029.

 

[bgillander]

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.



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

I could see them suing Apple if Apple wasn’t buying carbon credits from Kenya's Chyulu Hills Project and China's Guinan Project after advertising that they did, but that doesn’t seem to be the case, so shouldn’t the plaintiffs be suing the Chyulu Hills Project and the Guinan Project for selling those carbon credits if they feel there is misrepresentation? It sounds like Apple met its duty for what it represented.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

They have complete choice of what they buy. A company that until very recently actively blocked repairs isn't someone those people should be interested in. Their are modular phones out there, and other companies that make much easier to repair devices.

True, but repairability is still only one factor, and it hasn’t exactly helped those over on the Windows side avoid the inevitability that eventually something will stop working and will have to be replaced.
The vast majority of Windows devices made before 2019 will stop receiving security updates at the end of this year, the fact that you can replace every component doesn’t exactly change that fact.
Because literally to replace the components, you are now buying something that is damaging to the environment.
There’s also the fact that usually, not always, of course, but usually, more repairable devices are also less efficient. MacBooks come to mind, I can’t really think of a fully repairable laptop that can run for as long as the MacBooks that don’t also make repairability trade-offs.

 

[thefrost]

And what will the customers get in return?

 

[MacBH928]

It's a popular quote by Dick the Butcher on what they should do once they over throw the government and install a new ruling party.

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

there were lawyers in shakespear time!?

 

[jdawgnoonan]

I had my Apple Watch 4 almost since the day it was released in September 2018 until about 3 weeks ago. That's 6.5 years. I elected to swap it for recycling because I still have a Watch 6 and I was buying an Ultra 2. I was swapping back and forth between the 4 and the 6 for years, and the 4's battery was starting to last only about 12 hours.

I'm not so sure I've had any REGULAR watch last that long.

He has doubts that carbon neutral is really a thing. Kind of like having vaccines that didn't prevent the thing they were SUPPOSED to prevent.

Oh, and if you're going to criticize somebody for having any "level of stupid", you should make an effort to get spelling and detail correct. It's "RFK Jr." who is our secretary of Health and Human Services. Not "RKF"; that would be a different person entirely.

Henry VI, part II. Thank you for the background. I've read Hamlet and The Tempest, so I didn't get that reference. I learn something new every day, it seems!

Un-repairable, yes. But my Watch 4 lasted 6.5 years. So that's not too shabby, especially since pretty much no "regular" watch will last me for much longer than the factory battery anyhow.

We don't even need to force companies to LIMIT pollution. Just have them PUBLISH the oil used, electricity used, and types+amount of pollution emitted to make your new device. Kind of like how almost every food needs to tell you the calories of fat and sugar, plus the sodium, color dyes, ingredients, and other things in that food.

Publish it. If the people care about pollution or natural resources/rare-earth metals used, then they will make their decisions accordingly. If they don't care, then that too will become obvious over time.


Yes and no.

Yes, you can reduce your own personal DIRECT carbon usage by not buying things. But SOCIETY will still use natural resources and expel carbon in its support for you as a member of that society.

For example: You don't own a watch, phone, or even a car. You take the bus everywhere. Let's say the bus is electric and runs off of free Flatulent Unicorn Gas. Unicorns fart; it's a fact of unicorn life. So we bottled that and burn it in your morning and afternoon bus.

Well, the bus still had to be manufactured. It might have costed 2-4 barrels of oil to make your bus, plus some hours of electricity. And then there's the delivery costs to get that bus from its factory in Bowling Green, OH (or wherever it is that they make Unicorn busses) to the paint factory where they painted it with all the unicorn imagery...and then to ship that bus to your city.

And now that the bus in in service, diligently making its unicorn rounds every day for you and your neighbors, the REST of the road system still needs to operate correctly for that unicorn bus to get to you in the morning and to pick you up from work in the afternoon.

Roads are made of oil (basically), traffic lights need electricity and microprocessors. Early-morning bus routes require the street lights to work. More electricity and microprocessors, and maybe even a special chip called a photocell to tell that street light to stay off while the sun is up. And all that wiring they put in the road beds, or the WIFI cameras they're using to manage the traffic signals.

My point is that NOTHING, not your Apple Watch nor the street light in front of your house, is a thing all by itself. Everything is part of a bigger SYSTEM.

You can reduce your own carbon footprint, but only by a certain amount, after which, you have reached a minimum baseline. Even the Amish still generate a minimum baseline, just because they too are humans, and sometimes their horse-drawn carriages slow down traffic.
And don't get me started on the carbon footprint of a horse and carriage; your rickety old Toyota might be less pollutive!

I agree with you. But the real issue is if Apple is exaggerating its green marketing, which I have no doubt they are (as is every other company that markets on their green friendliness). I do not doubt that Apple is doing as well as they can on this, but I never believed that they had a carbon neutral watch as it simply is not possible. I personally could care less about my personal carbon footprint or that of the products that I buy, this marketing is not for people like me. I think carbon offsets are a humorous scam to begin with.

 

[OGdrknight]

People love to sue for small stuff.

They could saved their time and effort and waited for the watch to go on sale because all they’ll get is $25 from a class action.

Honestly, I could care less but at least Apple does try to be green while others just greenwash their products.

 

[diddl14]

Would be interesting to see a full report on the carbon footprint of the plaintiff along with their purchasing decisions.

 

[I7guy]

I agree with you. But the real issue is if Apple is exaggerating its green marketing, which I have no doubt they are (as is every other company that markets on their green friendliness). I do not doubt that Apple is doing as well as they can on this, but I never believed that they had a carbon neutral watch as it simply is not possible. I personally could care less about my personal carbon footprint or that of the products that I buy, this marketing is not for people like me. I think carbon offsets are a humorous scam to begin with.

Carbon offsets may be a scam, but as long as it's a thing and apple is truthful, the plaintiff's have a slim chance of winning.

 

[StuBeck]

True, but repairability is still only one factor, and it hasn’t exactly helped those over on the Windows side avoid the inevitability that eventually something will stop working and will have to be replaced.
The vast majority of Windows devices made before 2019 will stop receiving security updates at the end of this year, the fact that you can replace every component doesn’t exactly change that fact.
Because literally to replace the components, you are now buying something that is damaging to the environment.
There’s also the fact that usually, not always, of course, but usually, more repairable devices are also less efficient. MacBooks come to mind, I can’t really think of a fully repairable laptop that can run for as long as the MacBooks that don’t also make repairability trade-offs.

You can buy long term support for Windows 10 if you want, and at least on the Intel side, any machine made after 2017 will be supported. You can also upgrade individual components if you want to continue that systems life. Apple's answer is to trade in a device and hope that it doesn't just get thrown in the trash, and they want you to do that as little as after 1 day of owning a device with their trade in programs.