Washington Dismisses NOAA Suit
January 20, 2026
State of Washington v. U.S. Department of Commerce, No. 2:25-cv-01507 (W.D. Wash.).
The state of Washington voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Commerce in which it sought to restore $9.3 million in climate-related funding agreements between Washington and the department’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in 2023 and 2024 that the Trump Administration had terminated. The dismissal comes after a federal judge in the fall granted a preliminary injunction and found that the Trump Administration’s decision to terminate the funding agreements was likely arbitrary and capricious, unconstitutional, and in violation of federal regulations.
2025 Litigation
Value-Based Investor Nonprofits Challenge Texas Proxy Advisor Law
November 10, 2025
Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility v. Paxton, No. 1:25-cv-01803 (W.D. Tex.).
Three nonprofit organizations focused on faith- and value-based investing filed a complaint against the Texas attorney general alleging that the passage of SB 2337 violates the First Amendment by restricting speech based on content and viewpoint without a compelling state interest. The complaint alleges that SB 2337 unconstitutionally restricts and chills speech related to shareholder advocacy by requiring organizations providing “nonfinancial” advice, such as that related to ESG and sustainability issues, to publicly state that the advice is “not provided solely in the financial interest of shareholders of the company” and by imposing burdensome requirements on proxy voting advice based on “nonfinancial factors.” The plaintiffs argue that SB 2337 is facially unconstitutional and impermissibly vague and chills speech about value-based investing, including investing based on religious beliefs. The plaintiffs bring two claims under the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment, and seek declaratory and injunctive relief.
Eighth Circuit Upholds Dismissal with Prejudice of Putative Class Action over “Sustainable” Sneakers
November 7, 2025
Ellis v. Nike USA Inc., No. 24-2420 (8th Cir.).
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the Eastern District of Missouri’s dismissal with prejudice of a plaintiff consumer’s putative class action against Nike USA Inc. and its subsidiary alleging violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants falsely and misleadingly advertised their “Sustainability Collection” products as sustainable and environmentally friendly because none of these two thousand products, the plaintiff alleged, were made with any sustainable materials or recycled or organic fibers and instead were made with virgin synthetic and non-organic materials. The district court granted Nike’s motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide information substantiating her “unadorned conclusion.” The Eighth Circuit found that the district court did not err in dismissing the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice for several reasons: there is a presumption that a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is a judgment on the merits made with prejudice, the plaintiff failed to properly seek leave to amend her complaint, and the plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts even after being granted leave to amend.
Claims of Misleading Statements on Electric Vehicle Rentals Survive
October 15, 2025
Doller v. Hertz Global Holdings Inc., No. 2:24-cv-00513 (M.D. Fla.).
A Florida judge dismissed several securities fraud claims against Hertz Global Holdings Inc. stemming from the company’s statements that it was seeing strong demand for electric vehicles (EVs) that claimants had argued artificially boosted stock prices. The judge did not, however, dismiss the claims related to two alleged misstatements purportedly at odds with the actual trends in consumer demand for EVs. Both of the statements at issue were made by then-CEO Stephen Scherr in 2023, and both claimed strong demand for EV rentals across the company—a claim that was allegedly untrue.
Portland’s Limits on New or Expanded Bulk Fossil Fuel Terminals Stands
September 2, 2025
State of Montana v. City of Portland, No. 3:23-cv-00219 (D. Or.).
The District of Oregon dismissed with prejudice a dormant Commerce Clause challenge to the City of Portland’s amendments to its land use code that imposed limits on the construction of new or expanded bulk fossil fuel terminals. The court found that the plaintiffs did not adequately allege that the amendments were driven by economic protectionism or otherwise discriminate against interstate commerce on their face.
Nonprofits Challenge Secret Climate Advisory Group and Rollback of EPA Climate Protections
August 12, 2025
Environmental Defense Fund Inc. v. Wright, No. 1:25-cv-12249 (D. Mass.).
An environmental nonprofit and a nonprofit science advocacy organization filed suit against the Department of Energy (DOE), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Climate Working Group, alleging violations of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The complaint alleges that the defendants unlawfully established and used the Climate Working Group—a secret panel of “hand-picked” climate science skeptics—to justify rescinding the EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding and vehicle emission standards without the transparency, public notice, balanced membership, or public disclosure of records required under federal law. The plaintiffs bring four claims under the APA, as well as for ultra vires actions and mandamus, and claim injury from the lack of access to information and exclusion from the advisory process. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive orders to enjoin the Climate Working Group, vacate its actions, prevent the DOE and EPA from relying on the Climate Working Group’s report, compel disclosure of all related records, and ensure compliance with FACA’s requirements for advisory committees.
Court Denies Motion to Dismiss D.C. Avocado Suit, Greenlights Jurisdictional Discovery
August 11, 2025
Organic Consumers Association v. Calavo Growers Inc., No. 2024-CAB-006328 (D.C. Super. Ct.).
The Superior Court of the District of Columbia denied without prejudice a defendant avocado distributor’s motion to dismiss a deceptive marketing consumer protection lawsuit brought by a nonprofit advocacy group under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act. The plaintiff alleged that although Calavo represents to consumers that its products are sustainable and responsibly grown, the avocados are sourced from deforested land in Mexico, which exacerbates water scarcity, habitat and biodiversity loss, and climate change. Calavo argued for dismissal based on lack of personal jurisdiction and standing, claiming that it does not sell its products or publish any advertising in D.C. The court found that the plaintiff had standing as a public interest organization representing D.C. consumers concerned about sustainable avocados, and although the court was not “currently persuaded that it has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant,” the court exercised its discretion and granted the plaintiff 60 days to conduct additional jurisdictional discovery.
D.C. Circuit Dismisses Slave Labor Class Action
July 22, 2025
Coubaly v. Cargill Incorporated, No. 22-7104 (D.C. Cir.).
The plaintiffs filed a putative class action against seven cocoa importers, alleging that the importers violated the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. Specifically, they alleged that the defendant importers formed and control a cocoa supply chain harvested by enslaved individuals. On July 22, 2025, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the complaint. The court found that the plaintiffs did not plausibly allege a connection between the defendant importers and the farms where the plaintiffs worked.
W.L. Gore Hit with Class Action Complaint over "PFC Free" Label
June 17, 2025
Walton v. W.L. Gore & Associates, No. 1:25-cv-01948 (D. Md.)
Consumers from eight states filed a putative class action complaint against W.L. Gore & Associates alleging that the company misrepresents its products as “PFC* Free” despite its continued use of PFAS and alleged contribution to PFAS contamination. The complaint alleges that although Gore’s hang tags claim that certain products are “PFC* Free,” this representation is based on Gore’s own definition of “PFCs of Environmental Concern,” which excludes two PFAS used in Gore-Tex. The complaint further alleges that despite Gore’s representations that environmental stewardship is a “top priority” and that they take sustainability “seriously,” Gore’s manufacturing facilities and products have allegedly contributed to PFAS contamination in the environment. The plaintiffs bring 60 claims of fraudulent concealment, false advertising, unfair competition, and related claims under 28 states’ and the District of Columbia’s consumer protection laws, and seek injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and damages, including punitive damages.
Federal Court Rejects Greenwashing Claims Against Nike’s Sustainability Collection
June 10, 2025
Ellis v. Nike USA Inc., No. 4:23-cv-00632 (E.D. Mo.)
The Eastern District of Missouri denied the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s March 28, 2024 order granting Nike’s motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and other state-law claims. The plaintiff alleged that Nike misrepresented its Sustainability Collection as being made with “recycled and organic materials” that reduce waste and Nike’s carbon footprint and that she relied on these representations when she purchased three Nike products from the Sustainability Collection. The court granted Nike’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the amended complaint, finding that the plaintiff failed to allege any information or testing to form the basis of the “bald conclusion” that the products were not made with recycled and organic fibers and that she failed to plausibly plead her claims under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and request for leave to file a second amended complaint, finding the plaintiff was put on notice of her pleading deficiencies before entry of the final order.
Fifteen States Sue to Block National Energy Emergency Order, Calling It Unlawful and Unfounded
May 9, 2025
State of Washington v. Trump, No. 2:25-cv-00869 (W.D. Wash.)
Fifteen states filed suit challenging the President’s January 20, 2025 Executive Order 14156, “Declaring a National Energy Emergency.” The states allege the Executive Order is unlawful and unsupported because U.S. energy production “is at an all-time high, and growing” and there is no energy emergency warranting expedited project permitting. The states bring claims for common-law conduct outside the scope of statutory authority and four violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and seek declaratory and injunctive relief.
Federal Government Sues New York and Vermont Over Climate Superfund Laws, Alleging Constitutional Violations
May 1, 2025
United States of America v. New York, No. 1:25-cv-03656 (S.D.N.Y.); United States of America v. Vermont, No. 2:25-cv-00463 (D. Vt.)
The federal government sued New York and Vermont, challenging the two states’ climate superfund laws. Both complaints raise the same five causes of action: (1) preemption under the Clean Air Act; (2) unconstitutional extraterritorial regulations in violation of due process; (3) violation of the Interstate Commerce Clause; (4) violation of the Foreign Commerce Clause; and (5) preemption by the foreign affairs doctrine. As relief in both actions, the Administration seeks declarations that the states’ climate superfund laws are unconstitutional, both facially and as applied, and permanent injunctions to prevent the states from implementing and enforcing their climate superfund laws, as well as costs and disbursements.
Verizon Dodges Securities Suit Over Lead Cables as New Jersey Court Finds Claims Insufficient
March 31, 2025
Stitching Pensioenfonds Metaal en Techniek, et al. v. Verizon Communications Inc., et al., No. 1:23-cv-05218 (D.N.J.)
The District of New Jersey dismissed a case against Verizon Communications Inc. that alleged that the company had violated U.S. securities laws by concealing the fact that the company owned and allegedly had abandoned hundreds of miles of copper and lead cables, which the plaintiffs claimed exposed securities holders to substantial financial risks due to the potential for human health impacts due to lead exposure. The court dismissed the claims without prejudice, finding that the plaintiffs had not filed sufficient facts to support their claims but allowing them the opportunity to refile.
Saatva Hit with Class Action Over Alleged Misleading Claims of Eco-Friendly, Chemical-Free Mattresses
March 19, 2025
Williams v. Whitestone Home Furnishings, No. 1:25-cv-01527 (E.D.N.Y.)
The plaintiffs filed a complaint in a proposed class action against Saatva, a direct-to-consumer mattress company, in the Eastern District of New York, alleging that the company markets its products as nontoxic, natural, and chemical-free when in fact they contain materials that pose risks to human health and the environment, including polyester, viscoelastic polyurethane, and rayon. The suit asserts claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, breach of express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and various other state consumer protection statutes.
D.C. Court Allows Greenwashing Lawsuit Against Danone Over Evian Bottled Water to Proceed
March 18, 2025
Plastic Pollution Coalition v. Danone Waters of America LLC, No. 2024-CAB-004562 (D.C. Super. Ct.)
A D.C. superior court judge denied Danone Waters of America’s motion to dismiss the greenwashing case filed against it in October 2024. The plaintiffs in the case allege that Danone, which imports Evian-branded bottled water, has violated the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act by misleadingly marketing its products as sustainable and natural when in fact they produce significant amounts of plastic. The court held that the plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to support their claims and declined to dismiss the case or strike the jury demand filed in the case.
Amazon Sued for Greenwashing Over Basics Paper Products Linked to Boreal Deforestation
March 14, 2025
Ramos v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00465 (W. D. Wash.)
Consumers in four states filed a proposed class action against Amazon, alleging that the online retail giant greenwashed claims about its Basics line of paper products. The plaintiffs assert that Amazon claims identical environmental benefits for two of its lines of toilet paper; however, one of the lines is produced through a process requiring clearcutting and burning boreal forests. As a result, they claim they were deceived into purchasing products that are environmentally destructive. The 48-count complaint includes several state-specific fraud and consumer protection claims.
Florida Crystals Faces Class Action Over Alleged Greenwashing and Sugarcane Burning Practices
March 5, 2025
Merrell v. Florida Crystals Corp., No. 5:25-cv-02264 (N.D. Cal.)
A California woman filed a proposed class action against a Florida sugar manufacturer in the Northern District of California, asserting that the company falsely markets certain of its products as environmentally conscious and climate friendly. The complaint alleges that, rather than slashing sugar cane vegetation, Florida Crystals burns sugar cane to make its products – a practice that is currently banned or restricted in other sugar-producing countries such as Brazil, India, and Thailand because it generates harmful air pollutants. In burning sugar cane while simultaneously marketing itself as an environmentally conscious company, the complaint alleges, Florida Crystals is in violation of several state false advertising, unfair competition, and consumer protection laws.
Texas Court Upholds DOL Rule Allowing Fiduciaries to Consider Collateral Benefits Under ERISA
February 14, 2025
State of Utah, et al. v. Micone, et al., No. 2:23-cv-00016 (N.D. Tex.)
The Northern District of Texas ruled that the U.S. Department of Labor’s rule allowing fiduciaries to consider collateral benefits when deciding between competing investment options that each equally serve the beneficiaries’ financial interests does not violate the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
Pennsylvania Sues Federal Government Over Blocked Access to Billions in Environmental and Infrastructure Funds
February 13, 2025
Shapiro, et al. v. U.S. Department of the Interior, et al., No. 2:25-cv-00763 (E.D. Pa.)
Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, along with Pennsylvania agencies including the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief claiming that federal agencies are unlawfully restricting Pennsylvania agencies from accessing congressionally appropriated federal funds for a variety of grants, including grants for repairing abandoned mine lands and the waterways impacted by those former mine sites, grants for investment in clean-water infrastructure, and a program aimed at supporting reliable electric service in rural communities, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and constitutional separation of powers.
West Virginia Leads 22-State Challenge to New York’s Climate Superfund Law, Citing Constitutional and Federal Overreach
February 11, 2025
State of West Virginia v. James, No. 1:25-cv-00168 (N.D.N.Y.)
West Virginia and 21 other states; coal, oil, and gas trade associations; and a mining company filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act. The complaint alleges that the act violates the Commerce Clause, Due Process Clause, Equal Protection Clause, Eighth Amendment, and Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and that the state act is preempted by the federal Clean Air Act.
FIJI Water Sued for Alleged Greenwashing Over Microplastics and BPA in Bottled Products
January 31, 2025
Plastic Pollution Coalition v. The Wonderful Company LLC, et al., No. 2025-CAB-000585 (D.C. Super. Ct.)
A nonprofit organization filed a complaint against the Wonderful Company LLC and FIJI Water LLC alleging false and deceptive marketing in violation of the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act. The complaint alleges that the makers of FIJI bottled water promote the products as “untouched by man,” “collect[ed] in a sustainable artesian aquifer,” and “protected … from external elements,” but that test results allegedly reveal that the products contain microplastics and bisphenol-A (BPA). The complaint also alleges the products have “significant and ongoing contributions to plastic pollution” contrary to the defendants’ marketing representations to consumers that their businesses are “sustainable” and “promote a circular economy.” The nonprofit organization seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as costs and fees.
D.C. Court Sends Starbucks Ethics Sourcing Suit Back to Superior Court, Rejects Federal Jurisdiction
January 28, 2025
National Consumers League v. Starbucks Corporation, No. 1:24-cv-00421 (D.D.C.)
The federal D.C. district court granted the plaintiff’s motion to remand to the D.C. superior court a case alleging unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of D.C.’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act. The plaintiff alleges that Starbucks tells consumers that it ethically sources coffee and tea, but it sources products from farms that engage in human rights and labor abuses. Starbucks had removed the case from the D.C. superior court, asserting federal subject-matter jurisdiction via the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) and diversity of citizenship. The court rejected Starbucks’s arguments, ruling that the suit was not a class action brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 or D.C. Superior Court Rule 23 but rather was brought on behalf of the general public. The court also found that the damages amount required under CAFA and for diversity jurisdiction were not met because the plaintiff seeks damages arising from two coffee purchases.
Procter & Gamble Sued for Greenwashing Charmin Toilet Paper Linked to Boreal Deforestation
January 16, 2025
Lowry, et al. v. Proctor & Gamble Co., No. 2:25-cv-00108 (W.D. Wash.)
Eight consumers from Washington, California, Illinois, and Massachusetts filed a proposed class action alleging that Proctor & Gamble is greenwashing its Charmin toilet paper by misleading consumers into believing that the toilet paper is ethically sourced and that the company is following through with sustainable reforestation promises. The complaint alleges that Proctor & Gamble relies on its “Keep Forests as Forests” campaign and its “Protect-Grow-Restore” messaging at points of sale and online to market Charmin products as environmentally sustainable and that this is misleading because Charmin’s suppliers are allegedly converting key forests into “Frankenforests” with monoculture tree crops. The consumers allege 48 counts, including fraudulent concealment under multiple states’ laws.
2024 Litigation
View Litigation ⮟
Supreme Court Declines to Revive Youth Climate Suit, Leaving Ninth Circuit Dismissal Intact
December 9, 2024
Juliana, et al. v. United States of America, et al. (Supreme Court)
Twenty-one youth plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Ninth Circuit’s May 1, 2024 order instructing the district court to dismiss the suit without leave to amend. The petition presents two questions: (1) When plaintiffs have established that their ongoing injuries are traceable to the defendants’ policies and practices, does Article III require a particularized factual determination of whether a federal agency or official will redress the plaintiffs’ injuries following a favorable declaratory judgment that resolves the constitutional controversy? (2) Are there exceptions to the three demanding conditions for mandamus articulated in Cheney v. U.S. District Court for District of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004). The petition asks the court to hold the petition pending the Court’s opinion in a separate matter, and then grant, vacate, and remand the case to the Ninth Circuit for further proceedings.
California Lawsuit Challenges Pittsburg Tech Park EIR Over Alleged CEQA Violations
December 2, 2024
Center for Biological Diversity v. City of Pittsburg, et al., No. N24-2162 (California Supreme Court, County of Contra Costa)
The plaintiff filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in California state court alleging that the City of Pittsburg certified an environmental impact report (EIR) that failed to disclose or adequately analyze negative environmental impacts on biological resources, wildfires, community safety, GHG emissions, water quality, water supply, traffic, and noise for the Pittsburg Technology Park Specific Plan. The plaintiff requests, among other things, writs of mandate directing the respondents to vacate and set aside certification of the EIR, writs of mandate directing the respondents to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a temporary stay, a temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunctions, and a declaration that certifying the EIR and approving the project violated CEQA and CEQA guidelines.
Avocado Producer Sued for Greenwashing Over Alleged Links to Deforestation and Environmental Harm in Mexico
November 6, 2024
Organic Consumers Association v. Mission Produce Inc., No. 2024-CAB-006996 (D.C. Supreme Court)
A nonprofit organization sued an avocado producer pursuant to the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act, claiming that the company wrongly markets its avocados as being sustainably sourced when in fact, the complaint alleges, its sourcing practices contribute to illegal deforestation, water scarcity, climate change, biodiversity and habitat loss, and other negative environmental consequences in Mexico. The organization brings the case on behalf of the general public of D.C. and D.C. avocado consumers. The organization does not seek monetary damages, but does seek declaratory and injunctive relief requiring the defendant to stop advertising its products as “sustainable.”
Calavo Sued for Greenwashing Over Avocado Sourcing Tied to Deforestation and Water Scarcity in Mexico
October 4, 2024
Organic Consumers Association v. Calavo Growers Inc., No. 2024-CAB-006328 (D.C. Supreme Court)
A nonprofit organization sued an avocado producer and distributor on behalf of D.C. consumers alleging false and deceptive advertising in the sale of avocado products under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act. The complaint alleges that on its website, Calavo wrongfully markets its avocado products as being “sustainable” and “better for the planet” and represents the company’s commitment to “long-term ecological balance, environmental soundness, and social equity.” The plaintiff alleges that Calavo’s sourcing practices contribute to climate change, deforestation, water shortages, biodiversity and habitat loss, and other negative environmental consequences in the avocado-growing regions of Michoacán and Jalisco, Mexico. The action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as attorneys’ fees, but no money damages.
Meta and Zuckerberg Defeat Shareholder Suit Over Child Safety Disclosures in Proxy Statement
October 22, 2024
Eisner v. Meta Platforms Inc., et al., No. 3:24-cv-02175 (Northern District of California)
The Northern District of California granted Meta and Mark Zuckerberg’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s amended complaint brought under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The plaintiff alleged that Meta made misleading statements in its 2024 proxy statement about its efforts to protect children from sexual predators, and as a result he suffered economic loss by virtue of bringing this action. The court found that much of the information the plaintiff argued Meta should have disclosed was available to the public and rejected his argument that he need not allege economic loss because he sought only injunctive relief. The court maintained the conclusion it reached in its earlier denial of the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction that many of Meta’s proxy statements were inactionable “broad policy affirmations or aspirational statements.”
EcoScraps Fertilizer Maker Sued for Greenwashing Over PFAS Contamination from Sewage Sludge
October 25, 2024
Beyond Pesticides v. The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company, No. 2024-CAB-006782 (D.C. Supreme Court)
A nonprofit public interest organization filed suit against a lawn and garden fertilizer products manufacturer alleging false and deceptive marketing and sales of its EcoScraps fertilizer. The plaintiff alleges that the representations on the product packaging that the fertilizer is “eco friendly” and “sustainable” are deceptive because the plaintiff’s testing of the products revealed they contain PFAS from contaminated sewage sludge. The plaintiff brings claims under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief.
LA County Sues Pepsi and Coca-Cola for Greenwashing and Plastic Pollution Misrepresentation
October 30, 2024
The People of the State of California v. PepsiCo Inc., et al., No. 24STCV28450 (California Supreme Court, Los Angeles)
Los Angeles County sued beverage manufacturers PepsiCo and Coca-Cola, alleging that they misrepresented the environmental impact of single-use plastic beverage containers and misled consumers into falsely believing that recycling could offset associated environmental harms. The complaint alleges that the defendants represented themselves as “sustainable” companies and marketed the single-use bottles as “recyclable” and “made to be remade” despite knowing that plastics cannot be readily disposed of without associated environmental impacts. The complaint brings state claims for public nuisance, unfair competition, and untrue or misleading advertising and seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, restitution, civil penalties, and costs. On December 2, 2024, the defendants removed the case to the Central District of California under federal question and federal officer jurisdiction (No. 2:24-cv-10340).
Vermont Sued Over Climate Law Compliance as Emissions Deadline Looms
September 24, 2024
Conservation Law Foundation Inc. v. Moore, No. 24-cv-03770 (Vermont Supreme Court)
The plaintiffs filed a citizen suit under Vermont’s Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA). The suit alleges that the state’s secretary of natural resources has not complied with her duties under the GWSA, including conducting public hearings and using technically sound data to support rulemaking decisions. The suit asks the court to determine whether new or amended rules are necessary to achieve the statute’s requirement that the state reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 26% below 2005 levels by 2025.
NUK Sued for Greenwashing Over “100% Sustainable” Silicone Pacifiers
September 9, 2024
Kouyate v. NUK USA LLC, No. 1:24-cv-04020 (Northern District of Georgia)
The plaintiffs filed a proposed class action complaint against NUK USA LLC, asserting that the company has falsely advertised a line of pacifiers as made from “100% sustainable silicone.” In fact, the complaint alleges, the pacifiers have a negative impact on the natural resources used to create them and on the environment. Specifically, the plaintiffs point to (1) the product’s manufacturing process, which requires intensive mining operations; (2) its distribution, which requires transportation in greenhouse-gas-emitting trucks and planes; and (3) its disposal processes, noting that silicone is not recyclable, reusable, or biodegradable.
Danone Sued Over Evian Bottled Water Marketing Amid Allegations of Microplastics and Greenwashing
July 19, 2024
Plastic Pollution Coalition v. Danone Waters of America LLC, No. 2024-CAB-004562 (D.C. Supreme Court)
A nonprofit advocacy organization filed a complaint against the maker of evian bottled water, alleging false and deceptive marketing in violation of District of Columbia consumer protection law. The complaint alleges that Danone Waters promotes evian as “natural” and “healthy” while a laboratory evaluation found microplastics and bisphenol A in the bottled water products. The complaint also alleges that Danone misleads consumers by advertising its products as “100% recyclable” and “made from 100% recycled plastic” despite the company’s ongoing contributions to plastic pollution through its reliance on single-use plastic packaging.
Lululemon Sued for Greenwashing Over “Be Planet” Campaign and Environmental Impact of Apparel
July 12, 2024
Gyani v. Lululemon USA Inc., No. 1:24-cv-22651 (Southern District of Florida)
A consumer filed a putative class action complaint alleging that athleisure fashion company Lululemon created its Be Planet “greenwashing” marketing campaign to mislead customers to believe the company’s business practices and products were sustainable. The complaint alleges that Lululemon’s marketing campaign messages (such as promises to “become a more sustainable and equitable business [and] minimize its environmental impact”) are unfair, false, deceptive, and misleading because the company is responsible for significant greenhouse gas emissions, landfill waste, and the release of microplastics into the environment. The complaint brings claims for violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, misleading advertising under Florida law, and unjust enrichment.
New York Court Halts Kensington Expressway Project Over Climate and Environmental Review Failures
June 14, 2024
Western New York Youth Climate Council v. New York State Department of Transportation, No. 808662/2024 (New York Supreme Court)
The petition challenges the New York State Department of Transportation’s (NYSDOT) consideration of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change impacts in its review of the NYS Route 33 Kensington Expressway Project in Buffalo. Specifically, the suit alleges that the NYSDOT violated the state’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act and the New York State Constitution by misrepresenting the climate impacts, including increased greenhouse gas emissions, associated with the project.
Fifth Circuit Tosses States’ Challenge to SEC ESG Disclosure Rule for Lack of Standing
May 10, 2024
State of Texas; State of Louisiana; State of Utah; State of West Virginia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, No. 23-60079 (5th Circuit)
The Fifth Circuit dismissed for lack of standing a petition for review brought by Texas, Louisiana, Utah, and West Virginia challenging a final rule of the SEC requiring funds to disclose their votes on ESG matters. The rule went into effect on July 1, 2024. The states argued that they had standing because the states themselves suffer injury as investors in funds subject to the rule, because the funds will pass the costs of the rule on to all investors, and because of the states’ “quasi-sovereign” interest in their citizens’ economic well-being. The court found that the states did not establish standing to bring the petition for review and dismissed the petition without prejudice.
Texas Farmers Win Partial Block on USDA Disaster Aid Rule Over Alleged Race and Sex Discrimination
April 5, 2024
Strickland v. United States Department of Agriculture, No. 2:24-cv-00060 (Northern District of Texas)
A group of Texas farmers filed a motion for a preliminary injunction or, in the alternative, relief under 5 U.S.C. § 705 in the Northern District of Texas against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) challenging eight disaster relief programs managed by the USDA. They allege in the complaint that the USDA discriminated based on race and sex by creating a category of farmers defined strictly by race and sex, classifying those farmers as “socially disadvantaged” and then using different methods for calculating the amount and type of financial assistance. The plaintiffs seek an immediate injunction or stay halting the consideration of social disadvantage in the distribution of aid. On June 7, the court granted the motion in part and denied the motion in part. The court held that the defendants are enjoined from making or increasing payments or providing additional relief based on its definition of socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher. However, the USDA may still apply progressive factoring on future relief applications if done independently of the protected classes “race” and “sex.”
Fifth Circuit Grants Temporary Stay on SEC Climate Disclosure Rule Before Transfer to Eighth Circuit
March 15, 2024
Liberty Energy Inc. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, No. 24-60109 (5th Circuit)
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted an administrative stay of the Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors Rule on March 15, 2024 in response to the petitioners’ emergency motion for administrative stay and stay pending judicial review filed on March 8, 2024. The petitioners argued the stay was warranted because they are likely to prevail on the merits, the rule is arbitrary and capricious, the rule violates the First Amendment by mandating disclosures and effectively mandating discussing climate change, and the petitioners have suffered irreparable harm in the form of unrecoverable compliance costs and constitutional injuries.
On March 22, 2024, the court ordered transfer of the petition to the Eighth Circuit for consolidation and dissolved the administrative stay.
Ten States Challenge SEC Climate Disclosure Rule as Unlawful and Beyond Statutory Authority
March 6, 2024
West Virginia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, No. 24-60109 (11th Circuit)
Ten states petitioned for review of the Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors Rule, alleging that the rule exceeds the statutory authority of the SEC and is otherwise arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law. The petitioners requested that the court declare the final rule unlawful and vacate the SEC’s final action.
New York AG Sues JBS Over Misleading “Net Zero by 2040” Climate Claims and Consumer Law Violations
February 28, 2024
People of the State of New York v. JBS USA Food Company, No. tc240228-23 (New York Supreme Court)
The New York State AG filed a complaint in New York state court alleging that JBS USA Food Company, the largest producer of beef in the world, made unsubstantiated and misleading environmental marketing claims about its commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in violation of New York State’s consumer protection laws. The suit notes that beef production contributes significantly to climate change and alleges that JBS’s “Net Zero by 2040” claims are misleading because the company’s greenhouse gas emissions calculations fail to account for significant Scope 3 emissions related to the company’s supply chain land use. The suit asks the court to enjoin JBS from violating the state’s consumer protection laws, order JBS to disgorge profits traceable to the unsubstantiated claims, grant civil penalties, and perform independent audits of all JBS’s consumer-facing publications.
Chattooga Conservancy Sues USDA and Forest Service Over Logging Projects and NEPA Violations
February 26, 2024
Chattooga Conservancy v. United States Department of Agriculture, No. 1:24-cv-00518 (District of D.C.)
The Chattooga Conservancy filed a complaint against the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Forest Service under the National Environmental Policy Act, alleging that the agencies failed to assess the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of logging projects authorized to fulfill annual national timber targets. The complaint asks the court to block the agencies from offering further timber sales in fiscal year 2024 and from implementing the remaining commercial timber harvest efforts for authorized projects.
Texas Court Allows ERISA Class Action Against American Airlines Over ESG Retirement Investments
February 21, 2024
Spence v. American Airlines Inc., No. 4:23-cv-00552 (Northern District of Texas)
The Northern District of Texas denied a motion to dismiss filed by American Airlines that sought to dismiss the class action complaint alleging American Airlines breached its fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by investing its employees’ retirement savings with funds pursuing ESG goals and strategies, rather than focusing exclusively on maximizing financial benefits.
GrafTech Faces Securities Class Action Over Misleading Sustainability Claims in IPO Materials
January 25, 2024
Porter v. GrafTech International Ltd., No. 1:24-cv-00154 (Northern District of Ohio)
A purchaser of common stock filed a putative securities class action under the Securities Exchange Act against graphite electrode product manufacturer GrafTech, alleging that the company’s materially false and misleading statements and omissions caused him and class members to suffer significant losses and economic damages. The complaint alleges that GrafTech made claims in IPO offering materials promoting the “more environmentally friendly” steelmaking employed by its customers as key to its claimed sustainability initiatives when its facility operations had allegedly contaminated neighboring communities.
2023 Litigation
View Litigation⮟
KLM Faces Class Action Over Allegedly Misleading Environmental Claims About Biofuels and Carbon Offsets
November 13, 2023
Simijanovic v. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V., No. 2:23-cv-12882 (Eastern District of Michigan)
A customer filed a proposed class action against Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V., operating as KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for allegedly misleading claims related to claims of environmental benefits related to its use of biofuels and carbon offset program. The complaint alleges that KLM’s claims are deceptive because they are unqualified and imply that the benefits are significant when they are negligible. The consumer alleges that plaintiff paid more for flying on KLM than he otherwise would have had he known its representations and omissions about its environmental efforts were false and misleading.
Retired Oklahoma Employee Challenges Constitutionality of State’s Energy Discrimination Elimination Act
November 20, 2023
Don Keenan v. The State of Oklahoma and Todd Russ, in his capacity as the Treasurer of the State of Oklahoma, No. CV-2023-2762 (District Court of Oklahoma County)
A retired employee of the Oklahoma Employment Securities Commission filed a Verified Petition in the District Court of Oklahoma County on November 20, 2023, alleging that the Energy Discrimination Elimination Act of 2022, Okla. Stat. tit. 74 § 12001 (the “Act”) is unconstitutional. The employee alleges that the Act requires companies, including financial institutions, who do business in the state to affirm that they do not and will not boycott energy companies or the state will cease doing business with the financial institution and divest the state’s holdings from the financial institutions.
United Airlines Hit With Class Action Over Allegedly Misleading “Sustainable” Biofuel Claims
November 19, 2023
Alexander Zajac v. United Airlines, Inc., No. 8:23-cv-03145 (District of Maryland, Southern Division)
A consumer filed a proposed class action against United Airlines in the U.S. District Court in the District of Maryland, Southern Division alleging, among other things, that United Airlines’ description of alternative aviation fuels from biomaterials as “sustainable” is misleading. The consumer alleges fraud and violations of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act.
Cava Faces Lawsuit Over Allegedly Misleading “Healthy” and “Sustainable” Marketing Practices
October 13, 2023
GMO Free USA d/b/a Toxin Free USA v. Cava Group, Inc., 2023-CAB-006356 (D.C. Superior Court)
Anti-GMO citizen group Toxin Free USA filed suit against D.C.-based Mediterranean restaurant Cava Group, Inc., claiming false and deceptive marketing practices. The suit alleges that Cava markets its food as “healthy” and its business as “sustainable” when in fact certain food products contain synthetic biocide/pesticide residues and certain food packages contain man-made per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Cava filed a motion to dismiss the suit in November 2023.
26 State AGs Appeal Texas Ruling Upholding DOL ESG Investment Rules Under ERISA
October 26, 2023
State of Utah v. Walsh, No. 2:23-cv-00016-Z (Northern District of Texas)
26 State Attorneys General and private plaintiffs have appealed a decision from the Northern District of Texas upholding the Department of Labor’s ERISA regulations regarding ESG considerations in investing. The underlying rules, which took effect February 1, 2023, allowed financial fiduciaries to consider “the economic effects of climate change and other environmental, social, or governance factors” rather than only “pecuniary factors” when making investment decisions. The Northern District of Texas held that the rules are a reasonable exercise of the Department’s authority, that they changed little in substance regarding a fiduciary’s duties, and that the Department adequately explained its reasoning in issuing the regulations. The State Attorneys General appealed the decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on October 26, 2023.
American Airlines Faces Amended ERISA Class Action Over ESG-Linked 401(k) Investment Options for Pilots
August 25, 2023
Spence v. American Airlines Inc., No. 4:23-cv-00552 (Northern District of Texas)
A pilot filed an amended proposed class action complaint against American Airlines alleging that the defendant breached its fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA by managing its 401(k) plan for pilots with investment options that consider ESG policy goals. The plaintiff alleges that the majority of his plan portfolio is managed by a publicly traded investment management firm that has joined Climate Action 100+ and has advocated for ESG and sustainable investing. The plaintiff brings claims for breach of the duties of loyalty and prudence and to monitor fiduciaries, and seeks a declaratory judgment that American Airlines has violated ERISA, a permanent injunction, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
Consumers Voluntarily Dismiss Greenwashing Class Actions Against Kohl’s and Church & Dwight Over Misleading Eco Claims
August 14, 2023
Dougherty v. Kohl’s Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00456 (Eastern District of Wisconsin)
June 22, 2023
Charles v. Church & Dwight Co. Inc., No. 1:23-cv-02528 (Eastern District of New York)
Plaintiff consumers voluntarily dismissed two separate proposed class actions advancing claims of unjust and deceptive practices, unjust enrichment, fraud, and breach of express warranty, among others, for alleged misrepresentations and “greenwashing” in marketing of certain consumer products. (1) On August 14, 2023, a consumer voluntarily dismissed a proposed class action filed against Kohl’s Inc. for alleged misrepresentations of bedsheets being made from environmentally friendly bamboo fibers; (2) on June 22, 2023, a consumer voluntarily dismissed with prejudice a proposed class action filed against manufacturing company Church & Dwight Co. Inc. alleging “greenwashing” and misrepresentation in marketing laundry detergent as environmentally friendly.
Kroger Sued Over Allegedly Misleading “Farm Fresh” Egg Labels and ESG Animal Welfare Commitments
May 3, 2023
Long v. The Kroger Co., No. 1:23-cv-01179 (Central District of Illinois)
A customer filed a proposed class action complaint against The Kroger Co. in the Central District of Illinois claiming that labeling of eggs as “farm fresh” and “Grade A” allegedly misled consumers to believe the eggs were from hens not confined in cages. The plaintiff brought claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and state consumer fraud acts, as well as claims for breach of express warranty, implied warranty, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff also contended that in allegedly misleading customers that its eggs are cage-free, Kroger reneged on its ESG and sustainability commitments to animal welfare.
Fifth Circuit Dismisses States’ Challenge to SEC Proxy Vote Disclosure Rule on ESG Grounds
February 22, 2023
Texas v. Securities and Exchange Commission, No. 23-60079 (5th Circuit)
February 24, 2023
Press Release, Paxton Sues Biden Administration to Terminate Illegal SEC Rule That Will Hurt Financial Companies and Their Investors, Texas Office of the Attorney General
Texas, Louisiana, Utah, and West Virginia filed a petition in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals petitioning the court to review and set aside the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Final Rule, Enhanced Reporting of Proxy Votes by Registered Management Investment Companies; Reporting of Executive Compensation Votes by Institutional Investment Managers. The Texas attorney general published a press release highlighting the petition and asserting that the SEC rule amends the proxy vote reporting form, Form N-PX, to expand the number of voting categories in order to further the political agenda of the Biden Administration. The press release also claimed that the new rule would increase compliance costs and pressure funds to take actions that run contrary to the best interests of their investors.
Banks, VC Firms, and Law Firm Hit With Class Action Over Alleged Conspiracy in FTX Fraud Scheme
February 22, 2023
O’Keefe v. Sequoia Capital Operations LLC, et al., No. 1:23-cv-20700 (Southern District of Florida)
The plaintiffs filed a class action in the Southern District of Florida alleging that the defendants, which include banks, venture capital firms, accounting firms, and a California-based law firm, conspired with FTX to perpetrate fraud by, among other things, performing sham audits of FTX’s primary entities, certifying that efficient controls were in place, and providing non-routine, high-risk banking services to FTX and promoting FTX despite knowing that it was misappropriating funds.
401(k) Participants Sue DOL Over ESG Investment Rule, Alleging ERISA Violations and Overreach
February 21, 2023
Braun v. Walsh, No. 2:23-cv-00234 (Eastern District of Wisconsin)
Two 401-K plan participants filed a complaint in the Eastern District of Wisconsin challenging the U.S. Department of Labor’s final rule, Prudence and Loyalty in Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising Shareholder Rights, and seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction. The complaint alleges that the new rule violates ERISA and exceeds the authority granted to the Secretary of Labor by permitting and encouraging plan administrators to consider ESG factors when making investments on behalf of plan beneficiaries.
26 States and Private Plaintiffs Sue DOL Over ESG Retirement Rule, Alleging ERISA Violations and Regulatory Overreach
February 28, 2023
State of Utah, et al. v. Walsh and United States Department of Labor, No. 2:23-cv-16-00016 (Northern District of Texas)
Twenty-six states along with five private plaintiffs, including a publicly traded energy company and a nonprofit trade association, filed a complaint in the Northern District of Texas challenging Prudence and Loyalty in Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising Shareholder Rights, the final rule promulgated by the Department of Labor published on December 1, 2022. The complaint alleges that the rule undermines protections for retirement savings by allowing consideration of ESG factors, oversteps the Department of Labor’s authority under ERISA, and is arbitrary and capricious.
TBSL Investors File Fraud Suit Over Misleading Claims of Humanitarian and Sustainable Mission
January 17, 2023
Bhatia, et al. v. Thome, et al., No. 23STCV00999 (California Supreme Court, Central District of L.A.)
Equity investors in a company called TBSL filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California alleging that the defendants convinced investors to invest in TBSL by fraudulently holding itself out as a for-profit humanitarian organization and assuring investors that TBSL was a sustainable business dedicated to serving humanitarian efforts to end child hunger.
2022 Litigation
View Litigation⮟
Deutsche Bank and JPMorgan Face Class Actions Alleging Financial Role in Jeffrey Epstein’s Sex Trafficking Network
November 24, 2022
Doe v. Deutsche Bank, et al., No. 1:22-cv-10018 (Southern District of New York) and Doe v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., No. 1:22-cv-10019 (Southern District of New York)
Two proposed class actions were filed in the Southern District of New York against Deutsche Bank and JP Morgan Chase & Co. alleging that the defendants financially benefited from participating in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking operations. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege violations of federal sex trafficking statutes and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).