Sign In with Google
Sign In with Facebook
Danone Challenged on 'Carbon Neutral' Claim
A New York judge has determined that global food corporation Danone is required to defend itself in a lawsuit contesting its use of the term "carbon neutral" on labeling for its Evian spring water. The consumers engaging in the proposed class action indicated that they would not have purchased Evian if they'd been aware of how the company's production methods impacted the environment by releasing CO2 or contributing to pollution.
Considering the Ambiguity of 'Carbon Neutral'
In his 30-page judgement, U.S. District Judge Nelson Roman, based in White Plains, New York, labelled "carbon neutral" as a vague term that potentially misleads consumers. He further expressed that Danone could not reasonably expect consumers to understand its meaning merely by referencing the labels on Evian bottles.
The litigants, Stephanie Dorris from California and John Axiotakis from Massachusetts, claim they ended up paying inflated prices for Evian in 2022 under the mistaken impression that the "carbon neutral" claim implied the water had a lower environmental impact. Judge Roman ruled that the litigants could proceed with allegations of fraud, unjust enrichment, infringement of explicit warranty and offenses under consumer protection legislation in their respective states.
No Response from Both Parties
Of the claims relating to equivalent New York legislation, Judge Roman dismissed them but permitted the plaintiffs to alter their complaint. At the time of the ruling, neither Danone nor its lawyers were available for comments. Furthermore, the lawyers representing the plaintiffs did not respond to requests for comments.
What Does 'Carbon Neutral' Mean Anyway?
Dorris and Axiotakis, in their case, brought up Merriam-Webster's dictionary definition of "carbon neutral," which states it as leading to "no net addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere." Danone, conversely, clarified that it used the term as per a certification it received from the independent Carbon Trust and regarded the plaintiffs' outlook as contradictory to science and common sense. Judge Roman deemed it too early to conclude which of the party's interpretation was accurate.
