Apple is getting sued over carbon neutral Apple Watch claims

Just a heads up, if you buy something through our links, we may get a small share of the sale. It’s one of the ways we keep the lights on here. Click here for more.

Seven Apple Watch buyers have filed a lawsuit against Apple, alleging that the company made false and misleading claims regarding the carbon neutrality of certain Apple Watch models. 

The lawsuit, filed on February 26, 2025, in the federal court of San Jose, California, involves plaintiffs from California, Florida, and Washington, DC. 

They claim Apple’s assertions about the Apple Watch Series 9, Apple Watch SE, and Apple Watch Ultra 2 being carbon neutral influenced their purchasing decisions. 

According to the complaint, they either would not have bought these devices or would have paid a lower price had they known the truth behind Apple’s environmental claims. 

Is Apple lying about its Carbon Neutrality claim? 

Apple first introduced its carbon neutrality claim with the launch of the Apple Watch Series 9 in 2023, but the assertion quickly attracted scrutiny. 

A Chinese environmental research organization was among the first to challenge the claim, describing it as “climate-washing.” 

Soon after, European consumer groups also voiced skepticism. The lawsuit now escalates these concerns, arguing that Apple relies on carbon offsetting rather than actual reductions in its carbon footprint. 

Specifically, the complaint highlights Apple’s involvement in land protection projects in Kenya and China, which are intended to prevent deforestation. 

However, the plaintiffs contend that these projects would have proceeded with or without Apple’s involvement, making the company’s carbon neutrality claim fundamentally misleading. 

The legal filing explicitly states that “Apple’s carbon neutrality claims are predicated on the efficacy and legitimacy of these projects,” and therefore, “Apple’s carbon neutrality claims are false and misleading.” (via: Reuters) 

Despite the allegations, how the alleged misrepresentation personally impacted the plaintiffs remains unclear. 

The lawsuit does not detail any direct usability issues with the Apple Watch models in question, nor does it explain how Apple’s carbon offsetting initiatives directly harm consumers. 

This has led some observers to speculate that the lawsuit may be motivated more by potential financial settlements for attorneys and claimants than by genuine environmental concerns. 

Apple has not publicly commented on the case yet. However, the company has repeatedly reaffirmed its long-term commitment to achieving a 100% carbon-neutral footprint by 2030.

What do you think about this lawsuit? Do you think Apple deserves to get sued over this? Tell us what you think below in the comments, or via our Twitter or Facebook.