Apple faces fresh legal attack over its carbon neutral Apple Watch claim [u]

AppleInsider

Seven Apple Watch buyers are suing Apple over how it allegedly made false and misleading claims that certain models are carbon neutral.

Apple Watch Series 9 was the first model to be described as 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.



Read on AppleInsider

rhbellmor

Late breaking news… all seven are attorneys specializing in class action lawsuits!  Just kidding, I think. 

hexclock

Nothing that is manufactured is carbon neutral. The whole carbon credit shell game is a grifting scam. 

tht

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."

Carbon offsetting is genuine carbon reductions. These forests will be burned down. It's really a race between electrification, renewables penetration and how fast all these forests will be burned down.

Claimants are hypothesizing that these forest protection projects would have occurred without money coming from carbon credits. They would have to prove this counterfactual and prove that Apple knew their money didn't contribute to the forest protection projects. Sounds tough.

I'm not a fan of reforestation, and much prefer direct, deterministic methods for putting CO2 back into the ground. I can see groups trying to end the practice of carbon credits representing avoided CO2 releases, so I can sympathize with them here. But this sounds like ambulance chasing to me.

daalseth

hexclock said:

Nothing that is manufactured is carbon neutral. The whole carbon credit shell game is a grifting scam. 

Exactly. Multiple studies have found that they sell the same credits to multiple clients, sell the credits, and then develop the land anyway, or just lie about the credits they have to sell. 

wesley hilliard

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.

entropys

It is the change in total carbon captured in a forest that matters for the purpose of this exercise. The measurement of that increase would be what credits Apple is claiming, and has paid good money for. And if the forest burned down the carbon company would have to cough up the credit value, not Apple.

That completely leaves aside how manipulated and subject to well, “subjective” interpretation a lot of emissions and carbon capture measurement really is. In my role we spend a lot of time trying  to find ways of providing opportunities for farmers to sell carbon credits, including reforestation. In truth reforestation, particularly eucalyptus based, is high risk for the farmer  if it burned down. Soils carbon trading is also highrisk depending on when the original measurement is made and then when subsequent audits occur. Rainfall is a key driver of soil carbon. In drought prone areas like my country, if the baseline measurement occurred in a wet year, and then the audit in the middle of a drought, the farmer would end up having to repay a lot of credits right when their finances are stretched.

And to this day the EU has had the box seat in determining how it is measured (it’s the forever bureaucrats there that really run the show, not having to worry about ephemeral politicians) which quite coincidently (I am sure, snort) favours the EU economically compared with its transatlantic competitor or even countries such as Australia.

But I am sure these projects listed are a lot more credible than your common garden variety type of say, African project that my close email friend colonel Mbuti from Nigeria has to sell to the benefit of even little old me.

dee_dee

I hope Apple loses this case.  Carbon neutrality is one of the biggest scams in marketing today.  

mikethemartian

Wesley Hilliard said:

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.

You could recycle something a 100% and you are still doing damage to the environment because it requires energy. Thermodynamics.

eriamjh

Fun fact: there’s no such thing as “carbon neutral”.  

There’s no reasonably effective or efficient way to remove any released carbon from the air.   It’s expensive and doesn’t work.  

tht

eriamjh said:

Fun fact: there’s no such thing as “carbon neutral”.  

There’s no reasonably effective or efficient way to remove any released carbon from the air.   It’s expensive and doesn’t work.  

I’m getting pretty close to being carbon neutral. Solar+storage provides the energy for the house and the EV. Use a heat pump water heater, electric appliances. Getting closer every year. Waiting for the A/C break down to replace it with a heat pump. My 2 other cars are over 10 years old and will be replaced with EVs. That will be that for the household. 

My solar PV system currently produces more than I need, and it actually reduces the CO2 emissions of my neighbors too!

There are of course CO2 emissions from the manufacture of products, but that process is getting more and more carbon neutral as time goes on, as electric grids get more and more fossil-fuel free, as manufacturing processes get more fossil-fuel free. 

Hence, it’s great to see Apple driving towards this with their carbon neutral products. They are doing it as they should: use recycled materials as much as possible, use biodegradable materials as much as possible, avoid carbon intensive material as much as possible, ensure the manufacture of their products is all powered with fossil-fuel free energy. 

For their current carbon neutral Apple Watch Ultra, they’ve reduced CO2 emissions from a baseline of 80 kg to 12 kg. To get carbon neutral, they are buying carbon credits. Their preferred carbon credit method is reforestation and forest preservation. This is a tricky way to do it, and hence this lawsuit thinks it can get a payout. 

There are multiple companies already doing more deterministic and permanent ways. Climeworks is one of them: 

https://climeworks.com/

Basically uses rock weathering where CO2 is mineralized into rock. If I was Apple, I’d be funding this, plus use the carbon credits to subsidize solar+storage+EV all over the world.