Apple Watch Lawsuit Alleges ‘Carbon Neutral’ Claims Are Overstated

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action lawsuit claims Apple has misled consumers about the true environmental impact of its purportedly “carbon neutral” Apple Watch Series 9, Apple Watch SE (2nd generation) and Apple Watch Ultra 2.

Get the latest open class action lawsuits sent to your inbox. Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter.

The 41-page lawsuit contends that in a bid to capitalize on growing public concern for the climate crisis, the tech giant has widely promoted the purported carbon neutrality of the Apple Watches at issue, emphasizing the claim in marketing materials and packaging that bears a green, flower-like “carbon neutral” symbol.

Per the case, though the brand’s curated identity and ostensible commitment to environmental sustainability have allowed Apple to charge a premium for the smartwatches, the company’s claims are misleading because the two carbon emissions offsetting projects on which the representation primarily relies—the Chyulu Hills REDD+ carbon project in Kenya and the Guinan Afforestation ARR project in China—fail to provide genuine carbon reductions or legitimate environmental benefits.

According to the class action suit, the carbon reductions linked to these programs, which account for most of Apple’s apparent offsets, would have occurred regardless of the company’s involvement or the very existence of the projects. Despite Apple’s representations, the programs are “ineffective and redundant” and amount to no real carbon offset value, the case alleges.

The case explains that to be “carbon neutral,” the production and use of an item must result in no net addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. To achieve this, a manufacturer such as Apple can balance, or offset, carbon emissions by providing for an emission reduction elsewhere, including by purchasing “carbon credits” in verified offset projects, the complaint shares. A carbon credit constitutes one metric tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions that has been reduced, avoided or removed from the atmosphere, and a “retired” credit refers to one that has been removed from the carbon offset market and can no longer be used by any other entity to claim carbon reduction, the filing states.

Per the case, Apple represents that its carbon neutrality efforts have resulted in a 78-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions for the Apple Watch Series 9 paired with the Sport Loop wristband, a 75-percent reduction for the SE model with the Sport Loop band and an 81-percent reduction for the Ultra 2 model paired with the Alpine Loop wristband. Apple claims to have offset the remaining percentages by “retiring” a total of 485,000 carbon credits through its projects in Kenya and China, the lawsuit relays.

To claim carbon neutrality, a manufacturer must meet stringent standards to ensure their credits represent real and measurable emissions reductions, the Apple Watch lawsuit says. Per the suit, these standards particularly emphasize “additionality,” a requirement that offset projects result in emissions reductions that would not have happened without the initiative.

The case contends that Apple’s Chyulu Hills offsetting project, which purports to generate carbon credits by preventing deforestation, fails to meet the “additionality” requirement and provide genuine carbon reductions. According to the complaint, a significant part of the program’s land is located within a Kenyan national park that has been legally protected from deforestation since 1983.

Moreover, the primary aim of the company’s Guinan offsetting initiative in China is to create new forest cover on supposedly barren land, the filing describes. However, the lawsuit alleges that the project area was already heavily forested and covered by dense vegetation before the program began, and satellite imagery allegedly indicates no significant increase in tree cover attributable to the initiative.

“In both cases, the carbon reductions would have occurred regardless of Apple’s involvement or the projects’ existence,” the suit argues. “And 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.”

The lawsuit looks to represent all United States residents who, within the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased an Apple Watch Series 9, Apple Watch SE (2nd generation) or Apple Watch Ultra 2 for purposes other than resale.

Learn all about the legal process: What is a class action lawsuit?