By J. Randall Boyer, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP in the National Law Review
In today’s hyper-marketed economy, buzzwords like “natural,” “eco-friendly,” and “sustainably sourced,” are appearing increasingly on consumer goods. As a result, the Plaintiffs bar is taking aim at allegedly false marketing statements that products are good for the planet (or at least better for it than competing products) – so-called “greenwashing” litigation.
This rise in litigation is more than just a legal trend—it’s a reflection of changing consumer expectations, evolving regulatory frameworks, and heightened accountability in the era of environmental, social, and governance marketing. In this post, we’ll highlight key greenwashing cases we are watching and discuss what companies and marketers need to know to avoid being part of this growing legal trend.
What is “Greenwashing?”
Greenwashing is conveying a misleading impression that a company, product, or service is environmentally friendly, through marketing, branding, or public statements. The practice seeks to capitalize on consumer demand for environmentally responsible choices. Greenwashing litigation typically involves allegations that companies were able to charge higher prices through vague, exaggerated, or unsubstantiated environmental claims in marketing materials.
Current Cases
We are watching several cases that are reflective of this new trend. These cases highlight the types of claims that are becoming increasingly popular.
- Dib et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-02043 (N.D. Cal., filed February 26, 2025) – Plaintiffs assert that Apple’s claim of carbon neutrality for its Apple Watch Series 9, SE, and Ultra 2 models is deceptive because the projects used for carbon offsets would have occurred regardless of Apple’s involvement. Plaintiffs claim that advertised offsets must represent real, incremental environmental benefits.
- Lowry et al. v. Proctor & Gamble Co., Case No. 2:25-cv-00897(S.D. Ohio, filed January 16, 2025) – Plaintiffs allege practices like clear-cutting contradict Procter & Gamble’s claim that Charmin toilet paper uses paper pulp sourced through environmentally responsible forest management. Plaintiff asserts that use of the Forest Stewardship Council and Rainforest Alliance logos mislead consumers.
- Merrell v. Florida Crystals Corporation et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-02264 (N.D. Cal., filed March 5, 2025) – Plaintiff alleges that defendant sugar companies reportedly use pre‑harvest burning while implying ecological responsibility and branding themselves as climate-conscious. Plaintiff objects to the “Farming to Help Save the Planet” tagline.[1]
If you like this post, you’ll love our daily environmental newsletter, EnviroPolitics. It’s packed daily with the latest news, commentary, and legislative updates from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware…and beyond. Don’t take our word for it. Try it free for a whole month
