Evian Water is facing a "carbon neutrality" lawsuit

According to Reuters, a judge in New York recently ruled that Danone must face a lawsuit challenging its claims of "carbon neutrality" for Evian mineral water bottles.

Consumers involved in the proposed class action lawsuit said they would not buy Evian water if they knew that Danone's manufacturing process would release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere or otherwise cause pollution.

In a 30-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Nelson Roman of White Plains, New York, called "carbon neutral" a vague term that confuses consumers and said Danone expects too much, counting on consumers to understand its meaning from Evian's label.

Plaintiffs, Stephanie Dorris of California and John Axiotakis of Massachusetts, said they paid a premium for Evian in 2022, falsely believing that the "carbon neutral" claim meant that the water was more environmentally friendly.

Danone hit back in court filings, calling this "subjective interpretation" "manifestly unreasonable" and that "no reasonable consumer would interpret carbon neutrality as a product that does not emit any carbon dioxide throughout its life cycle." ”

Danone said Evian's packaging is in line with the Federal Trade Commission's green guidelines, which urge marketers to make specific, rather than more vague, generic "green" claims. The "carbon neutral" statement communicates a specific environmental benefit: carbon neutrality and is supported by third-party certification of the only internationally recognized carbon neutrality standard.

U.S. District Judge Nelson J. Nelson S. Román was not convinced by Danone's arguments. In a Jan. 10 order denying Danone's motion to dismiss most of the claims in the lawsuit, Roman said, "The term 'carbon neutral' is ambiguous, a technical term that is not commonly used by the average consumer and has multiple meanings that can mislead consumers."

He added: "A rational consumer might reasonably understand the term 'carbon neutral', which has a different meaning even within their industry, meaning 'zero carbon emissions'. Or such a consumer can understand that it carries Danone's definition of offset. There is even a third meaning. Therefore, he said, "it is best for the jury to decide, not to this court." ”

Referring to the fraud allegations in the complaint, he said: "The plaintiff reasonably made the allegation of fraud when alleging that the defendant knowingly relied on misleading 'carbon neutral' statements to induce consumers to purchase products at a higher price. ”

According to a survey conducted by Morning Consult in 2022, most Americans are unaware that there is no legal definition of the term, and although the FTC's Green Guidelines provide some guidance on carbon offsetting, they do not specifically define the terms "carbon neutral," "carbon negative," "positive climate," or "net zero." 

These guidelines are not legally binding, but are often cited in "greenwashing" lawsuits, while some states have incorporated them into state law, creating a confusing environment for manufacturers operating in multiple states.

"Claims that a product or entity is carbon neutral, carbon negative, climate neutral, climate negative or net zero emissions may mislead consumers into believing that the product or entity has eliminated all emissions," WWF added. Failing to address these misleading claims, the following two hypothetical companies can claim carbon neutrality: Company A: 99% reduction in Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions. Purchase carbon credits equivalent to the remaining 1% of emissions. Company B: 0% reduction in Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions. Purchase carbon credits equivalent to their total emissions. ”