chevron-down Created with Sketch Beta.

ARTICLE

Dorris v. Danone: Stemming the Tide of Greenwashing Litigation

Josephine Pechous

Summary

  • The case Dorris v. Danone Waters of Am. highlights increasing consumer lawsuits challenging ambiguous climate-related labeling, such as “carbon neutral,” which a court recently reconsidered and held did not mislead consumers.
  • To avoid misleading consumers, companies should provide clear, accessible disclosures about climate-related claims, align with the FTC Green Guides, and ensure supporting data is readily available.
Dorris v. Danone: Stemming the Tide of Greenwashing Litigation
d3sign via Getty Images

A new age of skepticism has brought an onslaught of consumer lawsuits regarding climate-related labeling claims. Dorris v. Danone Waters of Am., 2024 WL 4792048 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2024), involving carbon emissions and Evian Natural Spring bottled water, sheds some light on how companies may substantiate their claims and appease climate-conscious consumers.

Plaintiffs brought a putative class action against Danone Waters of America, alleging violations of consumer protection statutes, breach of warranty, and fraud. Plaintiffs claimed they bought Evian water because they understood its “carbon neutral” labeling and the accompanying “Carbon Trust” logo to mean that the product’s manufacturing did not produce carbon emissions or otherwise cause pollution. 

In January 2024, the district court granted in part and denied in part Danone’s motion to dismiss. Dismissing only one of plaintiffs’ claims, the court held that “carbon neutral” was an ambiguous term that could mislead a reasonable consumer into thinking it meant zero carbon emissions. 

Danone moved for reconsideration, and “upon reflection,” the court found clarity in additional caselaw and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Green Guides. The court held that a reasonable consumer would look beyond the front label, consult additional information on the back label, and know that there is no such thing as a carbon zero product.

The court distinguished two cases it previously relied on, deeming them “inapposite.” See Dumont v. Reily Foods Co., 934 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2019) (holding that a jury was better suited to determine whether a reasonable consumer would be misled when coffee labeled “Hazelnut Crème” contained no hazelnuts); Downing v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., 2021 WL 2403811 (D. Mass. June 11, 2021) (holding that regulations requiring full recyclability meant that defendant could not cure an ambiguous front label with a link to its website on the back label when only 30 percent of its coffee pods were recyclable).

The court concluded that both cases were close questions involving claims governed by industry conventions and government regulations. Conversely, no conventions or regulations existed to standardize the meaning of “carbon neutral.” Thus, a reasonable consumer would consult the product’s back label where a link to the defendant’s website provided additional explanation of what “carbon neutral” means and the Carbon Trust certification process. These disclosures satisfied the court’s concerns of consumers being misled.

The court also revisited its earlier interpretation of the FTC Green Guides. Originally, the court held that “carbon neutral” was just the sort of general environmental benefit claim the FTC warns against. Upon closer review, the court found that “carbon neutral” wasn’t like vague and general terms such as “eco-friendly” and “greener.” Instead, “carbon neutral” speaks to a more specific method to be eco-friendly and greener.

The court then applied two cases it previously overlooked. See Moore v. Trader Joe’s Co., 4 F.4th 874 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding that a reasonable consumer would not believe “100% Manuka Honey” meant the honey was fully derived from the Manuka flower because it is impossible to make honey derived from one floral source, the price of the product was suspiciously low, and the label said “10+”); McGinity v. Procter & Gamble Co., 69 F.4th 1093 (9th Cir. 2023) (holding that the ambiguous term “Nature Fusion” on the front label of shampoo can be resolved by the ingredient list on the back label).

Moore and McGinity both applied the proposition that labeling claims should be considered in context with the product itself and all the information available to consumers. Taken in context, “carbon neutral” was no longer ambiguous. As the front label discloses, Evian sources its water from the French Alps. Plaintiffs could not reasonably think that traveling from “France to California and Massachusetts to Plaintiff’s local BJ’s and Amazon distribution center” would produce zero carbon emissions. Plus, there is no such thing as a carbon zero product, and “the reasonable consumer standard does not make room for a plaintiff’s unreasonable or fanciful interpretation.” Additionally, the Carbon Trust logo and link to the defendant’s website signaled that the “carbon neutral” claim was qualified. 

This case is a reminder that environmentally conscious consumers are ready to check the validity of climate claims. Three key takeaways for companies moving forward are:

  • The FTC is updating its Green Guides after comments on its proposed guides closed in April 2023. The FTC explicitly sought input on carbon offsets and climate change claims. 
  • Including appropriate disclosures with carbon neutral claims can help avoid conveying a broader or unintended meaning.
  • Explanations for carbon-related labeling claims should be accessible on one web page, complete with emissions reduction data and certification documentation. 

    Author