Apple has prevailed in a major greenwashing lawsuit in the United States concerning its “carbon neutral” marketing claims for certain Apple Watch models. On 20 February, U.S. District Judge Noël Wise of the Northern District of California dismissed a class-action suit brought by consumers who questioned whether the company retired enough carbon credits to offset the environmental impact of its products.
The plaintiffs argued that Apple’s climate neutrality claims relied on insufficient carbon credit volumes and challenged the reliability of four nature-based offset projects used by the company. They also questioned methodologies adopted by the non-profit organisation Verra, which certifies carbon offsets. However, the court ruled that the claimants failed to demonstrate that Apple’s environmental statements were false or intentionally misleading.
Wise stated: “At this juncture, the court has a narrow question to consider: have plaintiffs plausibly alleged that Apple’s claims of carbon neutrality are false? Because the court finds that the answer to that question is no, Apple’s motion to dismiss is granted.” The plaintiffs declined to amend their complaint, effectively ending the case.
Carbon Credits and Corporate Liability
The decision contributes to a rapidly expanding body of climate-related litigation. Greenwashing lawsuits have nearly doubled globally since 2020, reaching approximately 2,700 cases in 2025. Legal experts note that the ruling provides companies with clearer guidance on how carbon offset retirements may be communicated to consumers.
The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), which filed an amicus brief supporting Apple, stressed that the case could influence corporate climate communication strategies. According to EDF representatives, a negative ruling might have discouraged firms from participating in voluntary carbon markets or relying on third-party verification systems.
“Companies should know that with due diligence and substantiation, these claims are defensible,” said Holly Pearen, lead counsel for carbon pricing at EDF. The organisation emphasised that credible verification frameworks remain essential to scaling corporate climate action.
Regulatory Uncertainty and Diverging Jurisdictions
The ruling also highlights regulatory fragmentation. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides, which regulate environmental marketing claims, are awaiting an update initially expected in early 2025. In the European Union, negotiations on the Green Claims Directive continue, while some countries have introduced national measures.
This divergence has already produced contrasting legal outcomes. In August 2024, Apple lost a similar greenwashing case in Germany before the Frankfurt Regional Court. The lawsuit, brought by environmental organisation Deutsche Umwelthilfe, argued that Apple’s carbon neutrality claims were misleading because forestry offset projects in Paraguay were guaranteed only until 2029. Consumers, the court held, could reasonably expect climate commitments to extend to at least 2050, in line with typical net-zero targets.
German judges concluded that temporary land leases and ecological risks, including monoculture eucalyptus plantations vulnerable to drought and fire, undermined the credibility of long-term carbon storage. As a result, Apple was prohibited from advertising the Apple Watch as carbon neutral in Germany.
Implications for Global Climate Claims
The contrasting outcomes illustrate growing legal scrutiny of corporate climate neutrality claims. While US courts appear to prioritise evidence of intent to deceive, European jurisdictions are increasingly examining the long-term integrity of offset projects and consumer expectations.
Apple has already begun phasing out certain expressions such as “carbon neutral” in anticipation of stricter European regulations. As governments refine environmental marketing rules, companies face rising pressure to substantiate claims with transparent data, robust verification and long-term project guarantees.
The Apple cases signal that climate communication is becoming a critical legal and reputational frontier. For multinational corporations operating across jurisdictions, aligning marketing strategies with evolving regulatory standards is now essential to avoid litigation risks and maintain consumer trust.
Cover: Tim Cook, photo by John Angelillo/UPI/Shutterstock (15360850ac), Agenzia IPA