William Gallagher
Seven Apple Watch buyers are suing Apple over how it allegedly made false and misleading claims that certain models are carbon neutral.
Apple first made a claim about carbon neutrality with the launch of the Apple Watch Series 9 in 2023, and immediately faced criticism. First a Chinese environment research organization called it "climate-washing," and then European consumer groups agreed.
Now according to Reuters, a case has been filed by seven users of the Apple Watch Series 9, Apple Watch SE, and Apple Watch Ultra 2. They claim they would not have bought the watches, or would have paid less, if they had not been misled.
The complaint was filed on February 26, 2025, in San Jose, California federal court by representatives of Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP. The plaintiffs from California, Florida, and Washington, DC, specifically claim that Apple is using carbon offsetting rather than genuine carbon reductions.
More, Apple's carbon offsetting projects concern land in Kenya and China, that have become protected from deforestation. The claimants say these two tree protection projects have nothing to do with Apple.
"In both cases, the carbon reductions would have occurred regardless of Apple's involvement or the projects' existence," they said in their filing. "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."
It's not clear how usability of the watches, or offsets versus being truly carbon neutral impact the claimants. At a glance, the suit appears to be more about payouts to attorneys and claimants, than any real concern about environmental issues or impact to users.
In a statement to AppleInsider, Apple did not directly respond to the legal case, but did speak to its central arguments about carbon neutrality.
"We are proud of our carbon neutral products, which are the result of industry-leading innovation in clean energy and low-carbon design. We've drastically cut emissions for Apple Watch by over 75 percent, and we are investing significantly in nature-based projects to remove hundreds of thousands of metric tons of carbon from the air. That innovation and progress is important to us and to the planet, which is why we detail our work prominently and transparently for our users."
Apple has also previously and repeatedly committed to having a 100% carbon neutral footprint by 2030.
Updated: 10:45 a.m. Eastern on 28 February 2025 with Apple's statement.
-m.jpg)
Brian Patterson
Charles Martin
Malcolm Owen
Christine McKee
Marko Zivkovic
10 Comments
Late breaking news… all seven are attorneys specializing in class action lawsuits! Just kidding, I think.
Nothing that is manufactured is carbon neutral. The whole carbon credit shell game is a grifting scam.
While I understand skepticism and it is warranted, I don't think there's any deception here. If carbon offsets were all it took to go carbon neutral, why not just reach the 2030 goal tomorrow by paying some billions for credits?
Apple is doing some real work here. Using more recycled materials, refining processes to reduce waste, and relying on renewable energy. Apple has also worked to reduce the impact of its supply chain.
Sure, a carbon footprint will exist no matter what. But that's what it's "carbon neutral" versus "carbon zero." Apple is building more renewable energy, planting forests, and innovating in more systems that reduce carbon used in all of its systems. Even if buying carbon credits is involved, it's only part of the strategy.
Besides, I'd love to see what the sources are on these studies around carbon credits being fraudulent. Maybe it's true. But just as likely these sources want people to lose faith in green energy efforts and are sowing misinformation. Why? Because there are people that believe green energy and carbon neutrality is a scam because they don't believe in climate change.
The people that know what they are talking about say this is how it gets done. So, unless anyone has a better idea, I think Apple is doing the best it can and is likely doing more than its competitors.
I doubt the lawsuit will go anywhere.