A federal court in California has dismissed a consumer lawsuit claiming that Apple's promotion of certain watches as carbon neutral is false and misleading. The plaintiffs argued that Apple failed to adequately offset emissions, but the court found their allegations unsubstantiated. The decision highlights the standards required for false advertising claims under California law.
Apple has marketed some of its Apple Watches as carbon neutral, meaning the company claims to have offset the greenhouse gas emissions associated with their production and use. In response, consumers filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that these claims are deceptive because Apple did not purchase enough carbon credits to neutralize the emissions.
The case, Dib v. Apple, No. 25-cv-02043-NW, was dismissed on February 26, 2026. To succeed under California false advertising law, plaintiffs must show that the advertisement could mislead a reasonable consumer—a significant portion of the general public acting reasonably. The court evaluated two main arguments from the plaintiffs.
First, the plaintiffs contended that Apple underestimated the number of watches sold and thus undercalculated the necessary carbon offsets. However, the court rejected this, noting that the claims relied on assumptions without factual basis. As the ruling stated, “Every layer of Plaintiffs' allegations about Apple's sales of Apple Watches are based on unsubstantiated assumptions . . . . Plaintiffs' offer nothing other than conclusory allegations that Apple incorrectly calculated the number of carbon credits it should have retired to offset the carbon neutral Apple Watches it sold in 2024.”
Second, the plaintiffs challenged the validity of Apple's carbon credits, claiming they overstated the amount of carbon removed from the atmosphere. Their analysis, prepared by lawyers, lacked support from experts or scientific bodies. The court observed, “No scientist, expert, scientific organization, environmental organization, or government agency is referenced in the ‘analysis’ proffered by Plaintiffs . . . . Plaintiffs failed to allege that the methodology underlying their work is accepted in any scientific circles, or that anyone else – scientist or otherwise – has endorsed the accuracy of their work."
The decision also referenced the Federal Trade Commission's Green Guides, which require advertisers to have a reasonable basis for environmental claims. The court concluded that the plaintiffs themselves lacked such a basis to challenge Apple. This ruling underscores the evidentiary hurdles in consumer deception cases involving complex environmental assertions.
