Apple is facing a lawsuit from seven buyers who say Apple engaged in greenwashing, with several Apple Watch models allegedly not being carbon neutral as the company claims. However, an unexpected ally has filed an amicus brief in support of the tech giant. 

What's happening?

As detailed by Sustainability Magazine, seven buyers filed a lawsuit in February alleging that their Apple Watch Series 9 models weren't carbon neutral because the forest projects in Kenya and China that Apple used to justify the label didn't reduce carbon pollution.

The plaintiffs also say Apple should have independently verified the credits rather than depending on existing verification systems.

The Apple Watches in question used 75% recycled materials, came in fiber-based packaging, and were delivered via lower-carbon shipping methods. 

Apple then purchased carbon credits, which "represent the right to emit one ton of carbon dioxide," per energy company Constellation, to offset the other 25% of pollution. 

Daniel Cherrin, who founded strategic communications firm North Coast Strategies, told Sustainability Magazine that environmental groups rarely support corporations in greenwashing cases. However, the Environmental Defense Fund, a leading nonprofit organization, stepped in.

The EDF wrote in its amicus brief that Apple's approach of using "conservatively estimated carbon credits to offset the rest" was "eminently reasonable and consistent with industry practice" and the law. 

Why is this important?

Apple intends to make all of its products carbon neutral by 2030 through various means, including relying on 100% recyclable materials, planting trees, and working with manufacturers and distributors using non-polluting, renewable energy.

However, the EDF argues that ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could disincentivize companies from participating in the voluntary carbon market. 

While carbon credit and carbon offset programs aren't perfect, with critics saying more transparency is needed, among other things, they can still be a crucial tool in mitigating the troublesome rise of global temperatures, mostly caused by dirty fuel pollution, though deforestation and widespread use of nitrogen fertilizers are other factors. 

Should the government be able to control how we heat our homes? Definitely 👍 Only if it saves money 💰 I'm not sure 🤷 No way ❌ Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.

"We've filed this amicus brief because Apple is an undeniable climate leader," Elizabeth Sturcken, the EDF's vice president of Net Zero Ambition & Action, told Sustainability Magazine. "Investors, employees, and consumers are asking for companies to take climate action. Companies need to be able to communicate this leadership."

What are the next steps?

On May 19 — four days after the EDF filed the amicus brief — the plaintiffs amended their complaint to request a jury trial, according to Sustainability Magazine. Meanwhile, Apple has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which the EDF supports. 

"Ironically, Plaintiffs' case thus threatens to harm the environment and result in less information for consumers. Apple's motion to dismiss should be granted," the EDF wrote in its amicus brief, adding that "the Plaintiffs' legal theory would chill corporate action to mitigate climate change." 

A hearing on the motion to dismiss is set for Aug. 27 at the U.S. District Court in San Jose, California.

Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.