On August 26, the Frankfurt Regional Court in Germany ruled that Apple Inc. could no longer market its Apple Watch as "carbon neutral" in Germany, arguing that the claim lacked sufficient scientific support and was misleading to consumers. This ruling not only dealt a blow to Apple's environmental marketing strategy in Europe but also reflected the EU's increasingly stringent regulation of corporate environmental claims.

Apple claimed the Apple Watch Series 9 and Watch Ultra 2 were its first carbon-neutral products when they were launched in September 2023. Subsequently, the new Apple Watch Series 10 was also designated carbon-neutral when paired with a specific band.

(Image source: Apple official website)

To achieve these claims, Apple implemented a series of emission reduction measures, including: using at least 30% recycled or renewable materials in its products; sourcing 100% of its manufacturing electricity from clean energy; and using non-air transport for more than 50% of its products.

Apple claims that these emission reduction measures have reduced the Apple Watch's carbon footprint by approximately 80% (compared to a 2015 baseline). The remaining emissions are offset by purchasing "high-quality carbon credits." This carbon offset primarily relies on forestry carbon sequestration projects supported by the Restoration Fund, such as investments in eucalyptus plantations in Paraguay to offset carbon emissions from production.

However, the court noted that 75% of the land leases for the offset project expire in 2029, with no guarantee of renewal, thus failing to ensure long-term carbon sequestration. Consumers reasonably expect "carbon neutrality" to be long-term and stable, and Apple's approach fails to meet this.

Furthermore, the court found that the buffer account Apple mentioned (designed to compensate for the loss of leased land after the contract expires) is insufficient to ensure sufficient containment of stored emissions.

The lawsuit was brought by the German Environmental Aid (DUH), an environmental organization that advocates for nature, the environment, and consumer rights. DUH called it a "victory against greenwashing."

Jürgen Resch, Federal Managing Director of the DUH, said: "Apple falsely implies that its carbon-neutral Apple Watch has a balanced carbon footprint. This promise deceives consumers because it is based on a carbon reduction program with ineffective offsetting projects. The alleged CO2 sequestration period in commercial eucalyptus plantations is only a few years, future safeguards in the contracts are insufficient, and the ecological integrity of the monocultures is not guaranteed. By filing climate lawsuits against businesses for greenwashing, we are ensuring that even companies of Apple's size must provide consumers with honest and traceable information about the actual environmental impacts of their products."

Furthermore, it is important to note that eucalyptus monocultures are not natural forests and require regular pesticide application for maintenance. These fast-growing trees consume large amounts of water and are highly flammable during droughts, further questioning the long-term carbon storage potential of such projects.

Although carbon offsets are a common tool for businesses to achieve net-zero emissions, their reliability has been questioned in recent years. Nature-based solutions, such as tree planting, are often ineffective due to fire, pests and diseases, or land use change, making it difficult to guarantee the permanence of carbon storage and posing risks such as double counting. As consumers and regulators increasingly scrutinize corporate environmental commitments, marketing approaches that rely solely on carbon offsets are gradually losing credibility.

In fact, the EU has already tightened regulations on corporate green marketing:

- The Green Transformation Consumer Protection Directive, which came into effect in 2024, explicitly prohibits companies from claiming their products are "carbon neutral" solely based on carbon offsets and requires companies to disclose the scientific basis for their environmental claims.

- The Green Claims Directive, expected to take effect in 2026, will require all environmental claims to undergo scientific verification and third-party review, and vague terms such as "eco-friendly" and "carbon neutral" will be strictly restricted.

This means that starting in 2026, companies will no longer be able to easily use the term "carbon neutral" in the EU market unless their emissions are near-zero or they can provide a long-term, transparent, and verifiable offset plan.

Apple responded that the court "largely supported the rigor of its carbon neutrality approach," but did not disclose whether it would appeal. At the same time, Apple announced that it would gradually phase out the "carbon neutral" label on the Apple Watch to comply with the upcoming EU regulations.

Apple's 2030 strategy prioritizes a 75% reduction in emissions compared to 2015 levels, with the remaining emissions then balanced through high-quality carbon offset projects.

In its 2025 Environmental Progress Report, Apple stated, "To achieve this goal, we are reducing emissions across our value chain and decarbonizing several of our largest sources. Since 2015, our overall value chain carbon emissions have decreased by more than 60%, while our revenue has grown by more than 65% over the same period."

"Apple's environmental achievements continue to be reflected in its products: the new MacBook Air, launched earlier this year, contains over 55% recycled content, a record for Apple products; the new Mac mini, the first carbon-neutral Mac, was introduced last year; and the launch of Apple Watch Series 10 makes the entire Apple Watch line carbon-neutral. These achievements are driven by significant reductions in three major carbon emission sources (materials, electricity, and transportation), with the remaining small amount balanced through high-quality, nature-based carbon offset projects."

Apple's case is not an isolated one. Other tech giants like Meta and Microsoft have similarly engaged in investments in exchange for carbon credits. This ruling is undoubtedly a wake-up call for these companies, emphasizing the need for more truthful and reliable environmental publicity, or they will face legal risks. Furthermore, future companies' carbon neutrality paths must focus more on substantial emission reduction actions rather than over-reliance on carbon offsets.

Author：Qinger