A German court has ruled that Apple must stop claiming its Apple Watches are ‘carbon neutral,’ citing misleading advertising under the country’s competition laws. The court criticized Apple’s reliance on a Paraguayan forestry project for offsetting emissions, which faces uncertainties due to lease expirations in 2029. The ruling highlights concerns over the reliability of carbon offset schemes and consumer expectations under the Paris Agreement.
Apple has marketed its latest smartwatches as carbon-neutral for nearly two years, arguing that clean energy production, sustainable materials, and shipping methods reduce carbon emissions by about 75%. The remaining emissions are offset through carbon credits. However, the court pointed out that the Paraguayan project—where most of the land leases are set to expire in 2029—lacks the long-term guarantee needed to ensure ongoing emissions offsets. This creates a significant gap in consumer assurance, as the 2015 Paris Agreement sets a goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2050.
The court noted that the Verified Carbon Standard program, which Apple participates in, includes a ‘pooled buffer account’ to address such uncertainties. However, the court found this insufficient, as it would only allow Apple to monitor the situation after the leases expire, rather than guaranteeing ongoing offsetting. The ruling underscores growing scrutiny over corporate sustainability claims and the transparency of carbon offset programs. Apple is now required to discontinue its ‘carbon neutral’ advertising for the Apple Watch in Germany, as the court found it misleading and not in compliance with competition law.
Environmental groups like Deutsche Umwelthilfe have long argued that such claims can be misleading. They contend that consumers should not be led to believe that carbon neutrality is assured indefinitely. This ruling may influence similar legal challenges in other regions, as more companies face increasing pressure to ensure their sustainability claims are both accurate and long-term. The decision also reflects broader global efforts to hold corporations accountable for their environmental impact and ensure that green initiatives are genuinely effective.