The Federal District Court's recent decision on the use of the term "carbon neutral" may undermine similar claims and, in any case, serves to remind consumers of the importance of manufacturers and marketers of their environmental claims. Consider obtaining information that is adequate and reasonable and based on facts.
In a pending decision, a federal district court has allowed a class-action lawsuit against Danone Water to proceed beyond a motion to dismiss, alleging that the company's claim that water made under the Evian name is "carbon neutral" is unfair and unfair. Government's attitude to consumers. Misleading. Property rights. [1]
District Judge Nelson S.
It is accused of violating the government's consumer protection law
The consumer plaintiffs claim that Danone's carbon neutrality claims violate various state consumer protection laws that prohibit unfair and deceptive trade practices, including New York State General Business Law (GBL) Sections 349 and 350, Massachusetts Chapter 93A General Statutes, and the California Consumer Remedies Act (CCLRA). ) including )) Cal. civil. Code §§ 1750 et seq. The plaintiff sued Dano again for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, and fraud.
The plaintiff's claim is based on Danone's claim that the Evian water label is "carbon neutral" because a reasonable consumer would conclude that the Evian bottle is environmentally friendly and safe and leaves no carbon footprint. Although they say that the bottling process releases carbon dioxide. The plaintiffs say they paid a "premium price" under Danone's carbon emissions claims.
Danone has tried to refute this claim, saying that the company's claim that the bottling process is "carbon neutral" is correct because (1) net emissions are calculated as carbon offsets are zero and (2) an independent third party, the Carbon Trust, has verified that Evian is "carbon neutral".
Danone goes on to say that no consumer interprets the term "carbon neutral" because the Evian bottle produces no carbon emissions because "(1) there are no products that are carbon neutral, (2) the dictionary definition of carbon neutral explains the conversion of consumption to emissions. and (3) the product's post-production The page explains Avian Water's approach to reducing and mitigating carbon emissions.[2]
Plaintiffs respond that Danone has not explained how it calculates its carbon neutrality, the importance of the Carbon Trust standards and how the defendants meet those standards, or that the standards themselves are "carbon neutral" under any climate conditions. Independent". Other projects are compensated." [3]
The judge rejected Dano's argument that it preempted many of the claims
Judge Roman Danon rejected the motion to dismiss most of the claims, stating that "the term carbon neutral is a technical term that can be confusing and ambiguous for consumers and a reasonable consumer would not be aware of what "carbon neutral" means when it comes to Evian bottles.
Judge Roman also found that reasonable consumers may be confused by the terms "carbon neutral", "carbon neutral" and "carbon neutral", especially as plaintiffs claim that nearly 60% of consumers do not understand the meaning of the term. . Carbon neutral." "" Therefore, at the stage of rejection, the court concluded that there is sufficient evidence that Danone Evian's claim that it is "carbon neutral" could mislead consumers.
To further support his conclusion, Judge Roman relied on the dictionary definition of "carbon neutral" as "inadequate and ambiguous" [4] as well as the US Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) guidelines. . . The Use of Environmental Claims in Marketing ("Eco Guidelines"), which warns marketers against making claims about "unqualified general environmental benefits". [5] Judge Roman stated that Danone's claim to be carbon neutral is such a claim. Because Section 93A covers Federal Trade Commission regulations, Judge Roman found the Green Directive informative.
Although Danone argued that linking the label of the Evian bottle (further clarifying the issue of carbon neutrality) could reduce consumer confusion, Judge Roman argued that the link was appropriate, arguing that each label should be clear without additional information. Consumers to be examined by the customer. Finally, Judge Roman found that the plaintiffs had sufficiently pleaded that they had specifically suffered damages based on payment based on Danone's environmental claims.
For the same reasons, Judge Roman denied Dano's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims under Section 93A, CCLRA violation, express warranty (California), unjust enrichment (California), and fraud. However, Judge Roman dismissed the plaintiffs' remaining claims, including claims that they violated Sections 349 and 350 of the GBL, on the grounds that there was no allegation that the activity took place in New York State and that there was no warranty. (Massachusetts, New York and California).
Very important things
- Violation of the law - carbon neutrality claims. Judge Roman's decision makes clear that companies that claim their products are "carbon neutral" or produce "net zero" emissions or make similar environmental claims are at risk of significant litigation and exposure to government carbon laws. .
- Importance of environmental protection policies. The Court's rejection of Danone under the Green Guidelines underscores the importance of these guidelines. With the FTC expected to update its green guidelines this year, companies should take steps to ensure compliance with the guidelines to reduce risk and ensure compliance. They should plan to make adjustments to their marketing and consumer messaging after the revised Eco Guide is published.
- Changing the legal landscape. This decision follows the passage of three California laws that would make new disclosures of greenhouse gas emissions. One such law, the Carbon Markets Voluntary Disclosure Act, requires any company doing business in California to submit new information that claims to achieve zero emissions or is carbon neutral. For more information on California's new law, see our analysis guide. California requires companies to disclose climate change risks, greenhouse gas emissions, and five things to know about California's new climate information disclosure law.
How can we help?
This recent decision, although only a federal district court decision, is a reminder of the importance of carefully considering local marketing questions. It may be necessary to ensure that the claim is supported by competent evidence and to provide reliable, clear and accessible information about the claim. Our consumer and advertising lawyers can advise you on this.
The ruling could encourage lawyers to file similar lawsuits against environmental claims for other products. When evaluating environmental claims, companies should review internal processes and document internal and consumer-facing actions to demonstrate compliance and reliable disclosure to consumers.
It may be useful to review or audit current local marketing inquiries. We have a team of consumer protection and advertising attorneys to assist you in these efforts.
[1] Doris no. Danone Waters of M. , No. 22-8717 (NSR), 2024 WL 112843 (SDNY Jan. 10, 2024).
[2] Identification mark . at 5 o'clock.
[3] Ibid. at 2 o'clock.
[4] Ibid. at 5 o'clock.
[5] Ibid. at 6 o'clock.
[See source.]