A tech giant renowned for its iPhone and sustainability goals, Apple was sued over carbon neutral claims for watches. Apple introduced the Apple Watch Series 9, SE, and Ultra 2 in September 2023 as its first “carbon-neutral” products, a milestone in its pledge to achieve carbon neutrality across its supply chain by 2030.

On February 26, 2025, seven consumers filed a class-action lawsuit in San Jose, California, federal court, alleging that Apple’s carbon-neutral claims for these watches are deceptive and misleading, leading to Apple being sued over carbon-neutral claims for watches.

The plaintiffs, from California, Florida, and Washington, D.C., claim they wouldn’t have purchased the watches—or would have paid less—had they known the environmental claims were unsubstantiated.

The case highlights growing scrutiny of corporate “greenwashing” as consumers increasingly prioritize sustainability, with 70% of U.S. and Canadian buyers valuing it, per a National Retail Federation and IBM study.

Alleged Flaws in Apple’s Carbon Offset Projects

The core complaint leading to this lawsuit targets two carbon offset projects Apple relied on—Kenya’s Chyulu Hills Project and China’s Guinan Project—claiming they failed to deliver “genuine” carbon reductions.

Chyulu Hills and much of the Kenyan project’s land lie within a national park protected from deforestation since 1983, meaning carbon savings would have occurred without Apple’s involvement.

The Guinan Project is also under critique: The Chinese project, meant to reforest “barren land,” was already heavily forested before 2015, undermining claims of additional carbon capture tied to Apple’s offsets.

The plaintiffs’ Legal Arguments assert that because these projects don’t meet the “additionality” test—reductions beyond what would naturally occur—Apple’s carbon neutral label is false, impacting buyer trust and pricing.

Also Read: PFAS Contamination In Birds: Researchers Detect 180 Times More ‘Forever Chemicals’ Than Before

Apple’s Defense and Environmental Goals

The company, in response, did not directly address the lawsuit but defended its environmental record on February 27, 2025, stating it cut Apple Watch emissions by over 75% through clean energy and low-carbon design innovations.

The offset strategy implemented by the company emphasized investments in “nature-based projects” to remove hundreds of thousands of metric tons of carbon, claiming transparency in its sustainability efforts.

Apple remains committed to its goal of carbon neutrality by 2030, integrating recycled materials (e.g, 100% recycled aluminum in Series 9 cases) and pushing suppliers toward renewable energy.

The suit comes amid rising legal challenges to green claims, as seen with companies like Gore-Tex facing similar scrutiny, reflecting a trend of consumer pushback against exaggerated eco-friendly marketing.

In Short

The lawsuit demands are simple: the plaintiffs seek unspecified damages for those who overpaid due to the alleged deception, plus an injunction to stop Apple from marketing the watches as carbon neutral.

Titled Dib et al. v Apple Inc., the lawsuit (No. 25-02043) was filed in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, representing all U.S. buyers of the affected models.

As of March 1, 2025, the court has yet to rule, with Apple’s response and further hearings anticipated to shape this high-profile case. Although a ruling against Apple could force industry-wide change across several sectors regarding its claims of sustainability, it could more personally affect Apple’s premium pricing strategy and brand reputation, which are tied to environmental leadership.

Also Read: BP Announced To Cut Renewable Investments, Prioritizes Oil And Gas Expansion