Recently, Apple has landed in legal trouble over its “carbon neutral” marketing. In February 2025, the U.S. federal court in San Jose, California, received a class-action lawsuit filed by seven consumers accusing Apple of false advertising: selling three Apple Watch models as “environmentally friendly” when the green label didn’t actually deliver on its emissions-reduction promises. In other words, they claim Apple was “bait-and-switching” consumers with a green façade.

The products involved are certain versions of the Apple Watch Series 9, SE, and Ultra 2. The plaintiffs, from California, Florida, and Washington D.C., say they bought these watches specifically because they believed Apple’s “carbon neutral” promise, but that the devices’ carbon footprints weren’t truly offset.

How did Apple sell this “carbon neutral” idea?

In September 2023, Apple heavily promoted what it called the “first carbon neutral Apple Watch,” marking the packaging with a green “Carbon Neutral” label and highlighting its environmental credentials. The company’s official claims included: over 75% reduction in production and design emissions; 100% green energy in manufacturing; 30% recycled or renewable materials; 50% reduction in air transport for shipping; and offsetting the remaining emissions via purchased carbon credits to “zero out” the footprint.

Sounds great, right? But the problem lies precisely in that last step—buying carbon offsets. Apple claimed it offset remaining emissions through two carbon credit projects: one on Mount Kenya and another in Guizhou, China. It sounds impressively international and green, but the lawsuit highlights fundamental flaws in these projects.

For example, the land in Kenya has been a national park since 1983, where logging has been banned for decades. There’s no realistic threat of it being deforested if Apple hadn’t paid for it. Similarly, the Guizhou project in China was already a large forest before it even started in 2015.

Put simply, these places would have continued to store carbon anyway. Apple’s money didn’t create any additional carbon reductions. Calling this “offsetting” is like paying extra at a so-called “organic” restaurant only to get regular vegetables at a higher price.

Apple’s response?

Faced with the lawsuit, Apple didn’t directly address the accusations, instead continuing to promote itself as an environmental leader. The company said:

> “We have reduced Apple Watch’s carbon emissions by over 75% and have invested heavily in nature-based projects, removing hundreds of thousands of tons of carbon. Our work is transparent.”

But how “transparent” is it really? Consumers and environmental groups aren’t buying it.

As early as the day Apple launched its “carbon neutral Apple Watch” in September 2023, environmental organizations were already raising questions. For example, the Institute of Public & Environmental Affairs (IPE) in China published a report titled “Apple’s Carbon Neutral Product Doubts,” pointing out issues like:

- Some suppliers in Apple’s supply chain actually increased their emissions instead of cutting them

- Apple stopped requiring some suppliers to publicly disclose their greenhouse gas emissions

- Insufficient disclosure about its carbon offset projects and “clean power” use

IPE’s concern is simple: Apple is a global tech giant. If it plays this “numbers game” version of carbon neutrality, other companies will follow suit. The result? The entire industry could rely on slick green marketing instead of making real low-carbon transitions.

To put it bluntly, this kind of “carbon neutral” product concept can mislead consumers into thinking they’re “guilt-free” if they just pay more for a green-labeled device. Rather than reducing consumption, it might even reinforce fast-fashion, upgrade-culture habits that are inherently unsustainable.

Apple’s Environmental Wins and Shortcomings

Of course, Apple isn’t doing nothing for the environment. It’s made genuine progress in many areas:

- 26 semiconductor manufacturers in Apple’s supply chain have pledged to reduce emissions of fluorinated greenhouse gases by 90% before 2030

- Apple has significantly increased its use of recycled materials, such as making the iPhone 16’s aluminum enclosure from 85% recycled content and sourcing over 95% of the lithium in its batteries from recycled supplies

- Gold wire in cameras and coatings on circuit boards are almost entirely from reclaimed materials

- Large-scale purchases of solar and wind energy, pushing suppliers to adopt green electricity

These are real achievements and deserve credit. But the consumer complaints are also real. For example, starting with the iPhone 12, Apple removed the bundled charger, claiming it was to “reduce waste.” Yet many users simply bought extra third-party chargers, so the total number of chargers in circulation didn’t actually drop. Apple claimed the environmental benefits, but it was customers who ended up paying extra. Is that a fair trade-off?

Apple has done meaningful environmental work. But using “carbon neutral” as a marketing gimmick to justify higher prices—while relying on dubious, paper-only offsets—raises serious problems. Genuine environmental responsibility isn’t achieved by simply adding a green sticker. It demands meaningful cuts in emissions throughout production and the supply chain, along with open, honest reporting so buyers know exactly what they’re supporting.

Otherwise, it’s the textbook definition of greenwashing. And the ones paying the price are the very consumers who genuinely want to help the planet.