Greenwashing Lawsuit News: Major Cases, Settlements, and Regulators

Greenwashing lawsuits — consumer class actions and government enforcement cases challenging companies’ environmental marketing — have surged past 150 U.S. class actions and continue to climb, with courts handing down a split record: some high-profile cases have been dismissed as too vague to be actionable, while others have produced settlements worth millions of dollars and binding limits on what companies can say about being “carbon neutral,” “sustainable,” “non-toxic,” or “net zero.”

The pattern matters because the risk is no longer confined to a handful of industries or a single regulator. Private plaintiffs, state attorneys general from both parties, and shareholder activists are all filing, and the federal government has largely stepped back. If your company markets anything as green, the question is not whether these cases are relevant. It is which theory, which forum, and which claim word is most likely to pull you in.

How Many Cases, and Against Whom

As of March 2025, the nonprofit Truth in Advertising (TINA.org) had tracked more than 150 class-action lawsuits involving greenwashing allegations in the United States, filed across 18 states.¹ California accounts for nearly half. Filings have risen steadily since 2015, with the largest single-year jump in 2023.

Globally, the Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics counted 2,967 cumulative climate-related cases filed through the end of 2024, with 1,899 in the United States. Twenty-five of the cases filed in 2024 specifically involved greenwashing claims, bringing the running total of greenwashing-focused climate cases past 160 worldwide.²

The industry breakdown by share of U.S. class actions tracked:

Home and garden products: 31%
Food and beverage: 20%
Personal care and cosmetics: 20%
Clothing and textiles: about 9%, including suits against H&M, Nike, Lululemon, and Allbirds

The remainder spans energy, aviation, and technology, with major oil companies, airlines, and tech giants all drawing legal scrutiny.¹

The Claim Words That Get Sued

A handful of marketing phrases drive most of the litigation. Of the class actions TINA.org tracks:

About 23% involve the word “sustainable”
21% target “environmentally friendly” or “eco-friendly”
14% challenge “recyclable” claims
9% concern “compostable” or “biodegradable” labels
6% address carbon reduction or carbon neutrality marketing¹

Carbon-related claims are a smaller slice by count but have produced some of the most consequential rulings, because they rest on offset mechanisms that consumers cannot easily verify.

Carbon-Neutral Cases: Apple, Delta, Vuse

Apple Watch: Dismissed

In Dib v. Apple Inc., filed in the Northern District of California, plaintiffs alleged Apple misled consumers by marketing its Apple Watch Series 9 and its corporate operations as “carbon neutral.” The complaint said Apple failed to retire enough carbon credits and relied on two ineffective offset projects in Kenya and China.³

On February 20, 2026, Judge Noël Wise dismissed the case. She called the allegations “conclusory” and found the plaintiffs had not plausibly shown Apple’s claims were false, noting they did not address whether Apple had used a “validated and verified methodology” for its offsets.⁴ The plaintiffs declined to amend, ending the case.

Holly Pearen, lead counsel for carbon pricing at the Environmental Defense Fund, said the ruling means “generalized critiques and unsupported carbon footprint calculations” will not suffice, and that future plaintiffs will need “objective, scientifically credible evidence” tied to specific credits.⁴

Delta Air Lines: Still Active

Delta has not been as fortunate. Berrin v. Delta Air Lines, filed in May 2023 in the Central District of California, challenges Delta’s claim of being “the world’s first carbon-neutral airline.” The suit alleges Delta relied on “largely fabricated” carbon offsets instead of reducing actual emissions, while charging customers a premium for environmentally responsible travel.⁵ Delta has called the suit “without legal merit” and says it moved away from offsets toward operational decarbonization in March 2022.

In March 2024, the court ruled the Airline Deregulation Act does not preempt the plaintiff’s state-law claims. In November 2024, it denied a partial motion to dismiss, finding standing for injunctive relief because the plaintiff is a loyal Delta customer who intends to purchase future flights.⁶ As of mid-2026, the case is at the class certification stage.

Vuse: Dismissed

On the same day as the Apple ruling, the Northern District of California dismissed Bell v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co., which challenged “carbon neutral” marketing of Vuse vaping products. The court found that plaintiffs failed to show a reasonable consumer would interpret “carbon neutral” to require zero emissions or independent verification of offsets. Final judgment was entered for the defendants on March 10, 2026.⁷

Food and Consumer Product Cases

Tyson Foods and “Climate-Smart Beef”

The Environmental Working Group sued Tyson Foods in September 2024 in D.C. Superior Court, alleging the company’s promises to reach “net-zero” greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and its marketing of “climate-smart” beef lacked credible backing. The complaint said Tyson spent roughly three times as much on advertising as on research related to reducing its climate impact.⁸

The settlement bars Tyson from making the challenged claims for five years and requires any new environmental claims to be supported by expert analysis.⁹

JBS USA: $1.1 Million to the New York AG

New York Attorney General Letitia James secured a $1.1 million settlement with JBS USA in late 2025 over the company’s “Net Zero by 2040” marketing. The investigation found JBS lacked a detailed plan or methodology for calculating its Scope 3 emissions, including supply chain emissions from cattle, when it announced the goal in 2021.¹⁰

The settlement requires JBS to present “Net Zero by 2040” as a “goal” rather than a “pledge” or “commitment,” disclose the specific actions it is taking, and conduct annual internal reviews of its consumer-facing environmental statements for three years. The $1.1 million was directed to Cornell University’s New York Soil Health and Resiliency Program.¹⁰

Amazon’s Paper Products

A proposed class action filed in March 2025 in the Western District of Washington alleges that Amazon’s “Amazon Basics” and “Presto!” paper products are marketed as environmentally responsible despite supply chains contributing to clearcutting in Canada’s boreal forest. The complaint targets Amazon’s “Climate Pledge Friendly” badge, the Forest Stewardship Council logo, and claims that the products come from “well-managed forests.”¹¹ The suit seeks to represent purchasers from 29 states and the District of Columbia who bought the products since January 2020. It remains active.

Krud Kutter: $1.5 Million Settlement

In October 2025, a federal judge in California approved a $1.5 million class-action settlement in Bush v. Rust-Oleum Corp. over Krud Kutter cleaning products labeled “Non-Toxic” and “Earth Friendly.” The plaintiffs alleged the products contained substances posing risks to humans and the environment.

Rust-Oleum was required to permanently remove the “Non-Toxic” label and may only use “Earth Friendly” when accompanied by a visible qualifying asterisk directing consumers to back-label disclosures. Eligible class members received between $1 and $2 per unit purchased, and more than 23,000 claims were processed.¹²

Lululemon’s “Be Planet” Campaign: Dismissed

A lawsuit challenging Lululemon’s “Be Planet” sustainability marketing was dismissed in February 2025 by the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiffs alleged the company’s commitments, including pledges to source 100% renewable electricity and reduce supply-chain carbon emissions, were misleading because its greenhouse gas emissions had more than doubled since 2020.¹³ The court ruled the plaintiffs lacked standing because they failed to connect the broad environmental promises to any specific product or price premium.

Fossil Fuel Cases and the Supreme Court

The longest-running greenwashing-related cases involve oil companies accused of concealing climate science and overstating environmental investments. Multiple state attorneys general have filed suits against ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, Shell, and the American Petroleum Institute.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s suit against the five companies and the API, filed in San Francisco County Superior Court, alleges a “decades-long campaign of deception” and seeks disgorgement of profits under California’s Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Laws.¹⁴ The District of Columbia’s 2020 suit against ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, and Shell alleged the companies spent fractions of a percent of their capital expenditures on green energy while marketing fossil fuels as “clean” and “emissions reducing.”¹⁵ That case survived removal and motions to dismiss, with the D.C. Superior Court ruling in April 2025 that the consumer protection claims could proceed.¹⁶

A recurring battle in these cases is jurisdictional. Oil companies have repeatedly sought to remove state-court suits to federal court, where consumer protection claims face a tougher path. State AGs have fought to keep them in state forums.

Two Supreme Court actions carry significant implications. On April 17, 2026, the Court ruled unanimously in Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish that a Louisiana coastal-damage lawsuit could be transferred from state to federal court under the federal officer removal statute. Justice Thomas, writing for the eight participating justices, said the “relating to” standard “sweeps broadly” and requires only a connection that is not “tenuous, remote, or peripheral.” The opinion also noted, citing prior appellate rulings, that false-advertising suits targeting oil companies’ climate-related communications to consumers did not necessarily “relate to” decades-earlier production for the federal government, suggesting limits on how far the precedent extends to greenwashing cases.¹⁷

Separately, the Court granted certiorari in Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County (No. 25-170), which will directly address whether federal law precludes state-law claims seeking relief for injuries caused by interstate and international greenhouse gas emissions.¹⁸ Oral argument is expected in the October 2026 term.¹⁹ The outcome could reshape the legal landscape for state-level climate suits against fossil fuel companies.

How Courts Decide These Cases

Plaintiffs typically rely on state consumer protection statutes, fraud, unjust enrichment, and breach of warranty. California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and False Advertising Law are the most commonly invoked, along with New York’s General Business Law. Federal class actions must meet Rule 23’s requirements: numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation.

The central question is whether a “reasonable consumer” would be misled by the marketing at issue. That standard sounds simple and produces sharp disagreements. Some courts dismiss cases at the pleading stage by reading terms like “recyclable” or “carbon neutral” literally. Plaintiffs argue what matters is how consumers actually understand the terms in practice.

Defendants have had notable success arguing that broad sustainability commitments are “non-actionable puffery”: vague aspirational statements no reasonable consumer would treat as a guarantee. The Lululemon and Apple dismissals both turned on versions of this reasoning. The courts found the statements were too general or that plaintiffs failed to connect them to a specific product or purchase decision. Companies have also succeeded by pointing to disclosed methodologies and third-party certifications. But many cases survive early motions and proceed to discovery, particularly when challenged claims appear on product labels or involve demonstrably inaccurate statements about recyclability or environmental impact.

Settlement Dollars and Outcome Rates

Of the 150-plus greenwashing class actions TINA.org tracks, 74% have been settled or dismissed and 26% remain pending. Thirty-five cases reached settlements, with terms publicly disclosed in 15. Of those 15, 14 produced monetary relief for class members and 11 required changes to marketing materials.¹

Notable financial outcomes:

Vanguard: $29.5 million settlement in Texas v. BlackRock (February 2026)⁷
DWS (Deutsche Bank subsidiary): €25 million fine from German prosecutors and a separate $19 million U.S. penalty over misleading ESG investment credentials
Invesco Advisers: $17.5 million civil penalty in November 2024
Rust-Oleum (Krud Kutter): $1.5 million class-action settlement in October 2025
JBS USA: $1.1 million settlement with the New York AG in November 2025

The Regulators: Federal Retreat, State Advance

FTC Green Guides in Limbo

The Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides, which guide the evaluation of environmental marketing claims, were last updated in 2012. The FTC began a review in late 2022 and held workshops in 2023 on recyclability claims, but as of early 2025 an FTC spokesperson said there was “nothing new to share” regarding potential updates.²⁰²¹ The guides are not legally binding, but courts and regulators use them to evaluate whether environmental claims are deceptive. In their absence, states like California have begun enacting their own labeling regulations.

SEC Climate Disclosure Rules Withdrawn

The SEC adopted rules in March 2024 requiring public companies to disclose climate-related risks and greenhouse gas emissions. The rules were challenged and stayed. On March 27, 2025, the SEC voted to withdraw its defense entirely. Acting Chairman Mark T. Uyeda said the action was intended to “cease the Commission’s involvement in the defense of the costly and unnecessarily intrusive climate change disclosure rules.”²²

State AGs Fill the Gap

With federal enforcement in retreat, state attorneys general have stepped in from both political directions. New York and California are pursuing traditional greenwashing enforcement, as the JBS settlement and the Bonta oil-company case show.

From the opposite side, a coalition of 16 Republican state attorneys general led by Montana’s Austin Knudsen opened an investigation in September 2025 into Amazon, Google, Meta, and Microsoft over their claims of 100% renewable energy usage. The AGs argue the companies rely on “unbundled” renewable energy certificates not tied to specific clean energy projects, making the claims deceptive.²³ The investigation is ongoing.

The Anti-ESG Counter-Wave

Greenwashing litigation now runs in two directions. Alongside traditional cases accusing companies of overstating environmental credentials, a growing number of suits challenge ESG-aligned policies from the other side.

In Texas v. BlackRock, Vanguard reached a $29.5 million settlement in February 2026 to resolve antitrust allegations that it used its shareholdings to reduce coal production. Vanguard agreed to “Passivity Commitments,” including a pledge not to advocate for specific carbon emissions reduction targets at portfolio companies for five years. A separate February 2026 ruling struck down Texas SB 13, which had prohibited the state from contracting with companies that “boycott” fossil fuel entities, on First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds.⁷

The Grantham Research Institute found that 27% of climate cases filed in 2024 featured “non-climate-aligned” arguments: challenges to government authority on climate policy, contests over ESG agendas, and anti-regulatory positions.²

What to Watch

Several developments will shape where greenwashing litigation goes next. The Supreme Court’s decision in Suncor v. Boulder County could determine whether federal law preempts state-law climate claims against fossil fuel companies, with consequences for dozens of pending cases. The California Supreme Court’s review of Environmental Democracy Project v. Rael will decide whether the state’s organic labeling laws apply to personal care products, potentially expanding what counts as regulated environmental marketing.²⁴ And new California reporting laws, SB 253 on greenhouse gas emissions and SB 261 on climate-related financial risks, take effect in 2026, creating new data that plaintiffs can use to test whether a company’s marketing matches its disclosures.

The combination of federal retreat and aggressive state-level enforcement means legal risk around environmental claims is not shrinking. It is fragmenting. Companies face scrutiny from traditional greenwashing plaintiffs who say they are overstating environmental progress, and from an emerging group of anti-ESG enforcers who say they are going too far. The specificity and accuracy of every environmental claim has become a litigation variable in its own right.

1
Truth in Advertising. By the Numbers: Greenwashing Class Action Lawsuits
2
London School of Economics. Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2025 Snapshot
3
Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. Dib v. Apple Inc.
4
Environmental Defense Fund. Apple Watch Carbon Neutral Court Ruling Sets Guardrails for Greenwashing Litigation
5
CBS News. Delta Lawsuit: Carbon Neutral Greenwashing Carbon Offsets
6
Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. Berrin v. Delta Air Lines Inc.
7
Columbia Law School. Climate Litigation Updates
8
The New York Times. Tyson Beef Climate Lawsuit
9
Environmental Working Group. Tyson Foods Agrees to Stop Making Net Zero and Climate Smart Beef Claims
10
New York Attorney General. People of the State of New York v. JBS USA Food Company: Assurance of Discontinuance
11
ClassAction.org. Class Action Lawsuit Challenges Environmental Claims for Amazon Basics Paper Products
12
Peters & Peters. Californian District Court Approves $1.5 Million Settlement to Class Action Greenwashing Suit
13
Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. Gyani v. Lululemon Athletica Inc.
14
Office of the Attorney General, State of California. Attorney General Bonta Files Amended Complaint in Lawsuit Against Five Largest Oil and Gas Companies
15
Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia. AG Racine Sues Exxon Mobil, BP, Chevron, and Shell
16
Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. District of Columbia v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
17
Cornell Law Institute. Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish
18
SCOTUSblog. Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County
19
Columbia Law School. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Fossil Fuel Companies’ Appeal in Boulder Climate Case
20
Federal Trade Commission. Green Guides
21
Packaging Dive. Packaging Labeling Recyclable Compostable Green Guides
22
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. SEC Press Release 2025-58
23
Office of the Montana Attorney General. Attorney General Knudsen Launches Investigation Into Big Tech Companies
24
GMSR. Environmental Democracy Project v. Rael, Inc.