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.
1. 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.
2. 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]
3. What can companies and marketers do?
The most effective protection for companies is to investigate their own statements to ensure there is adequate support for them. This includes ongoing monitoring of any third party organization upon which the company relies for certification or legitimacy. Even when a company’s internal practices are commendable, publicity about alleged corruption or lax standards at its advertised certifying organization can lead to litigation. Consequently, companies relying on outside organizations should investigate them thoroughly and continually monitor their reputational integrity.
Additionally, companies may want to consider softening marketing statements, using more aspirational language that courts have approved. For example, in Dwyer v. Allbirds, Inc., 598 F.Supp.3d 137, 153-54 (S.D.N.Y. 2022) the court held that broad aspirational statements without specific falsehoods are insufficient for consumer deception claims. Thus, statements like “low carbon footprint” and “sustainability” may be more defensible than concrete terms like “carbon neutral.”
4. Conclusion
As environmental advertising grows, greenwashing litigation grows with it. Several false advertising class actions have been filed against companies alleging that statements of environmental consciousness do not live up to actual practices. Companies should investigate their own statements and any organizations upon which they rely to support such statements. Additionally, companies may want to consider using broad, aspirational language that courts have held does not trigger false advertising claims.
FOOTNOTES
[1] On December 8, 2025, the Northern District of California granted in part Florida Crystals Corporation’s motion to dismiss. Merrell v. Fla. Crystals Corp., No. 25-CV-02264-SVK, 2025 WL 3514604, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2025). The Court explained that the Plaintiff’s characterization of deception and reliance in her opposition to the motion differed somewhat from that in the first amended complaint and it was difficult to evaluate the parties’ arguments. Id. The court granted plaintiff until January 9, 2026 to file further amendment. Id.