by Mrinmoy Chakrabarti, F25 Environmental Clinic student
Greenwashing lawsuits are legal actions brought against corporations for falsely advertising that their products, services and/or operations are more environmental friendly than they actually are. These lawsuits generally allege that these corporations have gained consumer trust and unfair financial advantage through such deceptive practices. The earliest major greenwashing suit was brought by California against Enso plastics for allegedly misrepresenting its plastic bottles as “biodegradable” and “recyclable.” Since then, government and private plaintiffs have filed lawsuits against corporations across various sectors to hold them accountable for misleading environmental and sustainability claims. In the past two years, three major companies, Apple, Lululemon and Tyson foods, have become embroiled in greenwashing litigation.
In February 2025, a class action lawsuit was filed against Apple in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by several Apple watch purchasers, alleging that Apple made misleading claims that three Apple watch models released in 2023 were carbon neutral products.[1] The complaint alleges that Apple charged a premium price for these watches due to the “carbon neutral” label. Apple allegedly claimed that carbon emissions from the production of the watches were offset by forest projects in Kenya and China. The plaintiffs however argued that these projects “fail to provide genuine, additional carbon reductions” and Apple has failed to independently verify the quality of these offsets. In May 2025, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) filed an amicus brief supporting Apple.[2] In the brief, EDF has supported Apple’s environmental claims, calling them as “eminently reasonable and consistent with industry practice.” The EDF emphasized corporate climate initiatives are critical for reducing carbon emissions and carbon offsets play a vital role in combating climate change. Currently, this lawsuit is at the pre-trial Motion to Dismiss stage.
In another class action lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in July 2024, class action plaintiffs, a group of consumers, alleged that Lululemon, a multinational athletic apparel retailer, made misleading environmental claims in its “Be Planet” campaign.[3] The complaint alleged that the company’s sustainability goals, such as sourcing 100% renewable electricity and reducing emissions by 60% were misleading, as its environmental footprint actual grew. In February 2025, the Florida Court dismissed the case for lack of standing. The court held that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate specific financial harm and could not prove that they paid a premium price based on the sustainability claims.[4] This decision highlights the difficulties in holding corporations accountable for their vague environmental claims. It suggests that, instead of generalized assertions, to have success plaintiffs should try to establish a direct link between the misleading claims and the financial injury suffered.
In September 2024, the environmental working group (EWG) sued Tyson Foods, one of the largest meat producers in the US, in the D.C. Superior Court for allegedly making false and misleading marketing statements.[5] According to EWG, Tyson promotes climate smart beef production and has pledged to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 without a credible plan. Beef production is the primary source of agricultural methane, and with current technology it is unrealistic to eliminate all emissions from this industry. Unlike the Lululemon case, here the court has rejected Tyson’s Motion to Dismiss.[6] The court has held that the plaintiff’s claims are plausible under the D.C. Consumer Protection Act. The court found that Tyson’s statements can mislead consumers, and are commercial speech, not protected under the First Amendment.
These cases highlight the complexities of greenwashing lawsuits. Plaintiffs must show that the claims are materially misleading. For companies, the challenge is to balance branding strategies with the promises they make.
[1] Complaint, Dib et al v. Apple Inc., No. 25-CV-02043 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 26, 2025).
[2] Brief for the EDF as Amicus Curiae, Dib et al v. Apple Inc., No. 25-CV-02043 (N.D. Cal., May 15, 2025).
[3] Gyani v. lululemon athletica inc., No. 24-CV-22651, 2025 WL 548405, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 19, 2025).
[4] Id. at *4.
[5] Environmental Working Group v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 2024 WL 5703741, at *1 (D.C.Super.)
[6] Id. at *5.
The articles published on this site reflect the views of the individual authors only. They do not represent the views of the Environmental Clinic, The University of Texas School of Law, or The University of Texas at Austin.