Lament: Apple Watch should not be called “CO₂ neutrality”

Apple advertises its Apple Watch from the last two generations with the statement that this is now “CO₂-neutral” when using certain ligaments. Even the user wants to compensate for the electricity consumption of the user using “Carbon Offset”. However, such statements are critically assessed by environmentalists and criticized as possible greenwashing. After a similar complaint in Germany that the German Environmental Aid (DUH) had submitted last year, seven Apple Watch buyers in California have now come together for a class action.

Advertisement

Apple is not said to have contributed

The civil procedure in front of the Federal Court in San Jose (DIB et al V Apple Inc, US District Court, Northern District of California, No. 25-02043) claims that Apple describes three variants of Apple Watch-Series 9, SE and Ultra 2-incorrectly as “Carbon Neutral” and “environmentally friendly”. This is “wrong and misleading,” said the plaintiffs According to a report by Reuters. The devices that came onto the market in September 2023 use, among other things, said carbon offsets, i.e. compensatory measures.

The plaintiffs, who come from California, Washington, DC and Florida, see at least two projects that Apple supports or carried out as problematic. One of them, “Chyulu Hills” in Kenya, is said to be in a national park, which has been banned by a deforestation since 1983, another, the “Guinan Project” in China, had already “dated” before the carbon-offset start in 2015. In both cases, climate reductions were carried out there without Apple having contributed to it. “Since Apple's claims on CO₂ neutrality are based on the effectiveness and legitimacy of these projects, Apple's claims on CO₂ neutrality are wrong and misleading,” said the application.

Duh complained for similar motifs

The plaintiffs emphasize that 70 percent of customers in the USA and Canada now find it important that products are environmentally friendly. They would not have acquired the devices if they had “known the truth”. The lawsuit does not require any more detailed compensation payments plus a ban on Apple's marketing statements that the devices are “carbon neutral”.

In Germany, the DUH complained for similar reasons. Apple's statement is “a marketing gag” and deceives customers. Specifically, the DUH criticized which compensation projects Apple is based on. It is unclear whether they can actually guarantee the promised effect. Apple's so -called “Restore Fund” is “largely non -transparent” and does not provide any information about long -term surveillance.