[ad_1]
The food and beverage industry is navigating uncharted waters as their climate claims fall apart amid a flood of lawsuits over their eligibility as ‘sustainable’ and ‘recyclable’ products. I’m here.
As a result, amid a lack of regulatory guidance, companies are grappling with different judicial opinions in different jurisdictions about what they can and cannot say about their climate impacts. Coca-Cola recently won two of her lawsuits in California and the District of Columbia, where judges ruled the beverage giant’s environmental statements were not misleading to consumers.
The Earth Island Institute, the organization that filed the suit in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, is appealing the decision. The lawsuit challenged Coca-Cola’s statement, which included tweets such as:
Earth Island wants companies like Coca-Cola to refrain from making any such claims, said Earth Island legal counsel Sumona Majumdar. “Fundamentally, companies that claim to be sustainable have problems if their business practices rely on the extraction and use of plastics,” she said.
The DC judge said Coca-Cola’s statement was a goal, not a specific promise to consumers. “Courts cannot be expected to determine whether a company is actually committed to creating a ‘lean world’ or ‘doing business the right way,'” he said of the company’s green slogan. I mentioned some of them.
Despite these Coca-Cola court victories, food and beverage companies are still trying to figure out what they can say about sustainability without angering consumers or frowning on activists and regulators. Trying to understand the exact limits. Stoell Reeves. Vu said his corporate clients often talk about inconsistencies in how courts interpret greenwashing claims of various companies.
While referring to a “patchwork of inconsistent visions” for what might be viewed as misleading, “For similar types of statements one may be accused and Others may not,” he said.
The industry expects updated guardrails from the Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guide, a rule aimed at rooting out false environmental claims, that hasn’t been updated in a decade.
Joseph Akilina, Senior Director and Associate General Counsel of the Consumer Brands Association, said many were eager to see the new rubric.
“We hope this process brings a need for clarity and consistency,” he said.
cola case
A lawsuit over corporate environmental claims raises questions about whether corporate climate-related statements are merely lofty intentions or direct promises to consumers.
In a DC Superior Court case, a judge said in early November that Coca-Cola’s statement was a general and ambitious target. But Earth Island’s general counsel said the organization believes the judge’s decision on Coca-Cola’s statement “does not adequately protect consumers.”
Earth Island said Coca-Cola’s claims were deceptive marketing that violated DC’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act. However, the judge said there was nothing in the law that “prohibits an entity from cultivating an image.”
Later that same month, Coca-Cola won another lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club, an environmental group, in which a federal judge ruled against the company and other companies, including Blue Triton Brands. dismissed the class action lawsuit.
The lawsuit challenged the bottle’s claim that the product is “100% recyclable” when most bottles are sent to landfills or incinerators due to their limited recycling capacity. The Sierra Club said these labels are fraudulent misrepresentations and violate California’s Consumer Lawyers Remedies Act, False Advertising Act, and Unfair Competition Act.
A federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, sometimes known as the “Food Court” because he handles so many food and beverage lawsuits, says reasonable consumers say the product is “recyclable.” We do not guarantee that it will actually be recycled.
Earth Island has also filed a similar lawsuit in the DC Superior Court against Blue Triton, makers of Poland Spring and Deer Park bottled water brands. The organization claims that Blue Triton deceptively portrays its business practices as environmentally friendly. A judge dismissed Blue Triton’s motion to dismiss in July, ruling that DC’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act ruled that the company’s statements “tend to be misleading,” regardless of whether consumers were actually misleading. He said that he could proceed with the lawsuit because it stipulates that only “is enough.”
Such lawsuits are on the rise, said Emily Lyons, partner at Husch Blackwell, which advises food and beverage companies.
Lyons said the outcome of Coca-Cola’s decision could change on appeal. Even so, a decision in one state does not guarantee that a beverage manufacturer’s marketing claims will be fully approved nationwide.
Companies “can’t look at all the state laws and say ‘yes, there’s no risk.’ That’s never the case,” she said.
A judge was unsympathetic to some of Coca-Cola’s industry peers. The plaintiff, a consumer, said he purchased products containing Nestlé hot cocoa because of the fraudulent social and environmental benefits listed on the packaging.
The case is still pending, but Nestlé said the allegations were false and that reasonable consumers would not be misled by the label’s statements.
McDonald’s was also sued by consumers in the Southern District of Illinois in March over its “farm-to-table” claims. If so, it argues that such marketing is misleading.
McDonald’s has moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that it is a “baseless accusation.”
green guide
Some judges look to the FTC’s Green Guide in their decisions. First published in 1992, this guide helps companies avoid making unfair or deceptive environmental marketing claims under Section 5 of his FTC Act or other laws.
In Sierra Club California’s lawsuit against Coca-Cola, a judge said the company’s claims did not violate the latest version of the guide, last updated in 2012. The judge said it could be recycled.
The FTC can take enforcement action if a company’s environmental marketing does not conform to the Guide. The commission claimed that sheets, towels and other textiles mistakenly sold by Walmart and Cole were made of eco-friendly bamboo when they were actually made of rayon.Kohl’s $2.5 million and Walmart paid $3 million in civil penalties.
At a public meeting on Dec. 14, FTC Chairman Lina Khan said updates to the Green Guide must keep pace with scientific developments, as well as consumer protection and consumer awareness. .
Consumer Brands Association’s Aquilina said the FTC is trying to keep pace with the broad changes in environmental marketing over the past decade and has a long list of potential updates to consider. “They’re cutting the work for them,” he said.
The current Green Guide does not address the use of the word ‘sustainable’, a term ‘very common in our everyday vocabulary’, Aquilina said. FTC Seeks Comments on How to Prevent Deceptive Environmental Claims and Calls Attention to Widely Used Marketing and Labeling Terms Such as ‘Sustainable’, ‘Compostable’ and ‘Recyclable’ doing.
“Consumers are increasingly demanding more information and transparency,” said Aquilina on how companies are addressing their environmental impact, citing growing public pressure for greater clarity on climate issues. talked about
At the FTC public meeting, several members of the public expressed concerns about the environment. Hilary Yochmans, founder of the advocacy group Politically in Fashion, said terms containing “sustainable” would “become meaningless without strict standards or efforts to promote healthy environmental practices.” It may even be harmful to
Khan recognized that consumers have little way of knowing if they are being presented with misleading climate claims. It’s possible,” Khan said.
[ad_2]
Source link
