Apple faces consumer lawsuit over carbon neutrality claims

Apple may not be as eco-friendly as they advertise.

A new consumer lawsuit alleges that the Cupertino company misled buyers of the Apple Watch Series 9, Apple Watch Ultra 2, and Apple Watch SE. Apple advertised these watches as "carbon neutral," but seven purchasers claim this marketing is bunk.

Apple claimed these watches would be carbon neutral through a combination of reduced emissions and the purchase of carbon credits via investments in carbon reduction projects. The lawsuit, which includes Watch buyers in Florida, California, and Washington, D.C., claims that two carbon offset projects Apple poured money into haven't done anything to actually reduce carbon. 

One project is in China, and the other lies in a Kenyan national forest. Both projects revolve around forests, and the lawsuit claims that these projects have done little to nothing to reduce carbon in the atmosphere. The Kenyan project is located in an area that came under deforestation protection in 1983. The Chinese project is located in an area flush with trees. 

The lawsuit alleges that "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." Apple claimed these projects have "retired 485,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents," according to the lawsuit. The suit alleges that these claims are misleading and false.

The plaintiffs in the case stated that "Apple's deceptive marketing practices... impair consumer choice" and "[deprive consumers] of the ability to make informed purchasing decisions in the smartwatch market." The crux of the lawsuit claims that "each Plaintiff would not have purchased the Products or would not have paid as much for the Products had Plaintiffs known that Apple’s 'carbon neutral' representations were false," meaning that Apple's advertising directly resulted in financial damages in the vein of manipulating consumer choice.

The case (Dib et al v. Apple Inc.) has been filed in the United States District Court of Northern California under Case 5:25-cv-02043 and is currently ongoing.