Apple’s “Carbon Neutral” Claims Challenged in U.S. Court: What Dib v. Apple Means for Greenwashing Litigation

A federal court in California has weighed in on one of the most closely watched greenwashing litigation cases of the year. In Dib v. Apple Inc., consumers challenged Apple’s marketing of certain Apple Watch models and its broader corporate operations as “carbon neutral,” arguing that the company’s claims relied on flawed carbon offset projects. The case deals with carbon neutrality claims, voluntary carbon markets, and consumer protection law, and offers important insight into how U.S. courts are approaching climate-related marketing litigation. It is the most recent addition to our Climate Court Litigation Database.

The Core Allegations: Carbon Neutral or Carbon Accounting?

The plaintiffs alleged that Apple marketed the Apple Watch Series 9, Apple Watch SE (2nd generation), and Apple Watch Ultra 2 as its first “carbon neutral” products. They further argued that Apple’s broader corporate carbon neutrality representations misled consumers into believing the company had achieved genuine net-zero operations.

According to the complaint, Apple relied on carbon credits from projects certified under the Verified Carbon Standard. The plaintiffs contended that several of those projects, including forestry and plantation initiatives in Kenya, China, and Paraguay, failed to deliver real, additional emissions reductions. In short, the lawsuit alleged that Apple’s carbon offset strategy did not justify its carbon neutrality marketing.

The legal theory was straightforward: if the credits were inflated or insufficient, then the “carbon neutral” claims were false or misleading under state consumer protection laws.

Apple’s Defense and the Court’s Reasoning

Apple moved to dismiss, arguing that the complaint failed to plausibly allege deception. The company emphasized that it disclosed its methodology, relied on third-party certification, and followed recognized standards for carbon accounting.

In February 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the case with leave to amend. The court did not rule that carbon neutrality claims are immune from challenge. Instead, it held that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently substantiated their technical critique of the offset projects at the pleading stage.

The court found that the complaint relied on unverified assumptions and did not attribute its satellite-data analysis or carbon credit critiques to identifiable experts, regulators, or scientific bodies. Without that external validation, the allegations were deemed insufficiently plausible under federal pleading standards.

The dismissal was without prejudice, leaving the door open for a revised complaint.

Why This Case Matters for Climate Litigation

Although the case was dismissed at the pleading stage, its implications are significant:

1. Courts Are Demanding Technical Rigor

   
   

   This decision suggests that future carbon offset litigation will require more than generalized critiques of voluntary carbon markets. Plaintiffs may need to rely on scientific reports, regulatory findings, or expert analysis to survive dismissal.

2. The FTC Green Guides Are Central

   
   

   Both sides invoked the Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides, which govern environmental marketing claims. As scrutiny of corporate net-zero pledges increases, courts are increasingly treating these guidelines as a benchmark for substantiation.

   
   

3. Carbon Neutrality Is Now Litigation Risk

   
   

   The case reflects a broader shift. Corporate climate commitments and ESG disclosures are no longer just public relations tools. They are potential sources of liability under consumer protection statutes and securities law.

Across jurisdictions, we are seeing more lawsuits challenging:

• “Carbon neutral” and “net zero” product claims

• Reliance on voluntary carbon credits

• Corporate climate disclosures and offset accounting

• Alleged greenwashing in ESG marketing

Track Greenwashing Litigation in Real Time

Dib v. Apple is just one example of how climate litigation, greenwashing cases, and carbon neutrality disputes are reshaping corporate climate governance.

At Climate Court, we track all kinds of climate litigation from across the world. If you want detailed case summaries, court filings, procedural updates, and expert analysis, including for Dib v. Apple, subscribe to the Climate Court Litigation Database.

Climate litigation is accelerating. Staying informed is no longer optional.