In September 2023, Apple unveiled its first "carbon neutral" products—the Apple Watch Series 9, SE, and Ultra 2—as part of its pledge to achieve full carbon neutrality across its supply chain by 2030. The company marketed these devices with a distinctive green leaf logo and detailed claims about emissions reductions and carbon offset investments. However, Apple now faces a lawsuit alleging that its environmental assertions are based on flawed carbon offset projects, raising concerns about corporate sustainability practices and the credibility of carbon neutrality certifications.
The Lawsuit: Allegations and Legal Framework
Plaintiffs and Jurisdiction
On February 27, 2025, seven consumers filed a class-action lawsuit against Apple in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Dib et al v Apple Inc, Case No. 25-02043). The plaintiffs, from California, Florida, and Washington, D.C., argue that Apple’s "carbon neutral" labeling for three Apple Watch models is deceptive under consumer protection laws, including California’s Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law. They seek damages and an injunction to stop Apple from using the term "carbon neutral" in marketing these devices.
Core Allegations: Flawed Carbon Offset Projects
The lawsuit challenges two carbon offset initiatives Apple uses to justify its neutrality claims:
- Kenya’s Chyulu Hills Project: Plaintiffs argue that this forest conservation initiative does not provide "additionality" since deforestation was already illegal in the area, making the carbon credits invalid.
- China’s Guinan Project: The lawsuit contends that Apple’s tree-planting initiative falsely claims to restore barren land, whereas satellite data indicates the land was already forested before Apple’s involvement.
Apple retired 485,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents through these projects, but the lawsuit asserts these credits lack legitimacy.
Apple’s Defense and Sustainability Strategy
Apple states it reduced emissions for the Apple Watch by over 75% through clean energy, recycled materials, and reduced air transport. The remaining emissions were offset with credits certified by SCS Global Services. However, the plaintiffs argue that these certifications rely on self-reported data from project developers, and a 2024 Cambridge study found that only 6% of analyzed carbon credits represented real emissions reductions.
Consumer Impact and Greenwashing Concerns
The Role of Sustainability in Purchasing Decisions
A study cited in the complaint shows that 70% of U.S. and Canadian consumers prioritize sustainability when making purchases. The lawsuit claims that Apple’s carbon neutral branding added a 10–15% price markup to the affected watches, leading consumers to overpay based on misleading claims.
Broader Implications for Green Marketing
This case highlights increased legal scrutiny of corporate environmental claims. The FTC’s revised Green Guides, set to take effect in 2026, will set stricter guidelines for carbon neutrality assertions. Similar lawsuits against Coca-Cola and Delta Air Lines signal a trend toward holding corporations accountable for "greenwashing."
The Carbon Offset Market: Structural Challenges
Additionality and Permanence
The lawsuit points out major issues in voluntary carbon markets:
- Additionality: Projects must prove they wouldn’t exist without offset funding. The Chyulu Hills project fails this test due to pre-existing conservation laws.
- Permanence: Offsets must last decades, but events like wildfires can negate sequestration efforts. The 2024 California wildfires erased millions of carbon offsets, raising questions about Apple’s strategy.
Certification and Transparency Gaps
While Apple promotes SCS Global’s certification, investigations found that auditors often approve projects based on theoretical models rather than field data, undermining credibility.
Legal Precedents and Potential Outcomes
Class Certification Hurdles
For the case to proceed as a class action, plaintiffs must show that all members suffered similar harm. Precedent from Kwikset Corp. v Superior Court (2011) supports false labeling claims, which could aid the plaintiffs.
Regulatory Interventions
This lawsuit coincides with the SEC’s proposed climate disclosure rules, which would mandate stricter transparency in corporate offset programs. A ruling against Apple could accelerate regulatory changes and force companies to audit their offset portfolios more rigorously.
Apple’s Path Forward
Operational Changes
To maintain credibility, Apple may need to:
- Reduce reliance on offsets and focus on direct emissions cuts.
- Invest in carbon removal technologies like direct air capture.
Stakeholder Engagement
Environmental groups and investors are pressing Apple to adopt stricter verification standards for its carbon neutrality claims. Shareholder resolutions demanding more transparency may follow.
Conclusion: A Watershed Moment for Corporate Sustainability
The Dib v Apple case challenges the $2 billion voluntary carbon market and could redefine how corporations substantiate environmental claims. If the plaintiffs succeed, companies may be forced to provide auditable data to support carbon neutrality assertions or abandon them altogether. The outcome will influence consumer trust in green certifications and shape corporate sustainability practices for years to come.