Our website publishes news, press releases, opinion and advertorials on various financial organizations, products and services which are commissioned from various Companies, Organizations, PR agencies, Bloggers etc. These commissioned articles are commercial in nature. This is not to be considered as financial advice and should be considered only for information purposes. It does not reflect the views or opinion of our website and is not to be considered an endorsement or a recommendation. We cannot guarantee the accuracy or applicability of any information provided with respect to your individual or personal circumstances. Please seek Professional advice from a qualified professional before making any financial decisions. We link to various third-party websites, affiliate sales networks, and to our advertising partners websites. When you view or click on certain links available on our articles, our partners may compensate us for displaying the content to you or make a purchase or fill a form. This will not incur any additional charges to you. To make things simpler for you to identity or distinguish advertised or sponsored articles or links, you may consider all articles or links hosted on our site as a commercial article placement. We will not be responsible for any loss you may suffer as a result of any omission or inaccuracy on the website.

Danone must face Evian water ‘carbon neutral’ lawsuit

by Jessica Weisman-Pitts
0 comment

Danone must face Evian water ‘carbon neutral’ lawsuit

By Jonathan Stempel

(Reuters) – A judge in New York ruled on Wednesday that Danone must face a lawsuit challenging its “carbon neutral” claim on bottles of Evian spring water.

Consumers in the proposed class action said they would not have bought Evian had they known that Danone’s manufacturing process allowed the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere or otherwise caused pollution.

In a 30-page decision, U.S. District Judge Nelson Roman in White Plains, New York, called “carbon neutral” an ambiguous term that confuses consumers, and said Danone “expects too much” for them to learn what it meant from Evian’s labels.

The plaintiffs, Stephanie Dorris of California and John Axiotakis of Massachusetts, said they paid premium prices for Evian in 2022, mistakenly believing that the “carbon neutral” claim meant the water was more environmentally friendly.

Roman said the plaintiffs may pursue fraud, unjust enrichment and breach of express warranty claims, and claims under California and Massachusetts consumer protection laws.

He dismissed claims under comparable New York laws, but said the plaintiffs may amend their complaint.

Neither Danone nor its lawyers immediately responded to requests for comment. Lawyers for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to similar requests.

Danone’s products also include Dannon, Oikos and Activia yogurt.

The lawsuit is among hundreds of proposed class actions filed annually against food producers, often challenging the precision of their labels.

Dorris and Axiotakis had cited Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defining “carbon neutral” as “having or resulting in no net addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.”

Danone said its use of the term reflected a certification from the independent Carbon Trust, and that the plaintiffs’ view defied science and common sense.

Roman called it premature to decide who was right.

“Rather than possessing a common, everyday meaning, the term ‘carbon neutral’ is more technical and scientific,” he wrote. “Consumers thus may reasonably become confused … if it has not previously been explicitly defined for them – as in, before seeing it on the product’s label.”

Danone is based in Paris. Its North American headquarters are in White Plains.

The case is Dorris et al v Danone Waters of America, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 22-08717.