.svg)
On 26 August 2025, the Regional Court of Frankfurt barred Apple from advertising the Apple Watch as a “CO2-neutral product” in Germany. The case was brought by Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) and decided under Germany’s Unfair Competition Act. The court said the headline claim was misleading for a typical consumer. It also clarified that Apple’s “Carbon Neutral” logo is not a certification seal, so the problem lay in the wording, not in using a syOn 26 August 2025, the Regional Court of Frankfurt barred Apple from advertising the Apple Watch as a “CO2-neutral product” in Germany. The case was brought by Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) and decided under Germany’s Unfair Competition Act. The court said the headline claim was misleading for a typical consumer. It also clarified that Apple’s “Carbon Neutral” logo is not a certification seal, so the problem lay in the wording, not in using a symbol.
Apple lost in Frankfurt not because it reduced too little, but because the last 20–25% it tried to “neutralise” rested on short-term forestry contracts that don’t match what consumers reasonably expect when they read “carbon neutral.” The court treated 2050 as the intuitive horizon shaped by the Paris Agreement. Leases expiring in 2029 did not clear that bar.
What Apple actually did
From 2023 onward, Apple marketed select Apple Watch models as “carbon neutral.” The company cut product footprints by around three-quarters through cleaner electricity in manufacturing, high recycled content, and logistics that shift at least half of shipments by weight to ocean and rail instead of air. It also said it would match the electricity customers use to charge the watches with renewable energy. Only the residual was covered with nature-based credits. Apple’s own environmental reports and specs spell out the “50% non-air shipping” and matched-charging elements.
The watch still emitted several kilograms of CO₂e over its life. Apple relied on forestry credits in Latin America to claim “neutrality.” In Germany, the focus fell on projects in Paraguay.
Why the claim failed in Frankfurt
Judges looked past the reductions and focused on permanence. Apple’s offsets came from a forestry project in Paraguay based on eucalyptus plantations. According to the court and summaries of the ruling, leases for roughly 75% of the project area run only until 2029, and Apple could not show binding rights beyond that date. The panel held that a reasonable consumer reading “CO₂-neutral product” would expect compensation to endure roughly to mid-century, in line with the Paris Agreement. Short leases that end in 2029, plus the reversal risk of fast-growing plantation forestry, made the neutrality headline misleading under §5(1) UWG. The case is 3-06 O 8/24; the Hessian judiciary note and multiple contemporaneous reports confirm the lease-term finding.
A brief, non-dispositive note on ecology: large-scale eucalyptus monocultures tend to support lower biodiversity than native, mixed forests and can heighten fire and water-stress risks, which in turn undermines long-term carbon storage stability. Recent reviews and case syntheses show that mixed-species or more diverse stands are generally more resilient than monocultures, while plantation eucalypts can reduce local diversity and increase vulnerability to disturbance. Those ecological concerns were not the core legal test in Frankfurt, but they explain why monoculture plantations are a poor vehicle for decades-long “neutrality” promises.
The ruling did not throw out Apple’s reduction work. It found the “neutral” label misleading because the offsets couldn’t credibly neutralise emissions over the period consumers would assume.
The new rulebook companies must read against
German courts were already tightening green claims. In 2024, the Federal Court of Justice held that “climate neutral” is misleading unless you immediately explain how neutrality is achieved and distinguish reductions from compensation. In 2023, the Berlin court in HelloFresh said essential clarifications can’t be hidden behind a QR code or link. Those lines of reasoning set the table for Apple.
At the EU level, the Empowering Consumers Directive is law and will apply from 27 September 2026. Among other things, it blacklists environmental neutrality claims for products when they are based on offsetting and cracks down on vague labels. National authorities can deploy the EU’s coordinated enforcement regime with penalties up to 4 percent of turnover for widespread infringements. The separate Green Claims Directive, which would require pre-verification of voluntary claims, is paused and uncertain after June 2025; plan for it, but don’t assume timing.
What would have worked
A credible path was available that fits both the science and the law.
First, keep the reductions and talk about them plainly. “This model emits X kg CO₂e cradle-to-grave, down Y% from the 2019 baseline. We achieved this via 100% clean electricity in manufacturing, higher recycled content, and shifting more than 50% of shipment weight to non-air modes.” That is factual, specific, and supported by Apple’s own disclosures.
Second, stop short of “neutral.” If you compensate residuals, label it a contribution and explain how, without implying the product is neutral. The Frankfurt logic and BGH line make absolute neutrality claims high-risk even when reductions are strong.
Third, if you do compensate, use credits that genuinely match the atmospheric lifetime of CO₂. The Oxford Offsetting Principles push companies toward durable removals by 2050; the Integrity Council’s Core Carbon Principles set a quality floor. Biochar, enhanced rock weathering, and DACCS offer storage measured in centuries to millennia, consistent with the consumer-expectation horizon the court recognised. Forestry can be part of a portfolio only if land tenure and management secure permanence on equivalent timescales.
Fourth, hard-wire legal due diligence into procurement. Don’t rely on a registry logo. Test land tenure, replanting obligations, buffer mechanics, reversal insurance, method eligibility under ICVCM, and verifier independence. Document it. If you cannot evidence permanence and additionality in public, do not make a claim that depends on them.
How to say it: claims that survive scrutiny
A strong claim is specific, measurable, and time-bound.
“Cradle-to-grave emissions of this watch are 8–12 kg CO₂e, reduced by at least 75% versus our 2019 baseline. We achieved this by sourcing 100% clean electricity for manufacturing, using high recycled content materials, and shipping 50% or more of products by ocean and rail. We make a separate annual climate contribution to durable carbon removal equal to our remaining emissions.” That’s the spirit courts have been steering brands toward. The numbers and levers here reflect Apple’s public documents; the removal language reflects Oxford/ICVCM guidance rather than a neutrality promise
The lesson for marketing and compliance teams
Reduction still wins. Apple’s manufacturing energy, use of recycled materials, and logistics shifts are substantial. Where it stumbled was the last mile: permanence and language. After Frankfurt, “neutral” is a trap unless you can prove compensation lasts on the order of the climate problem itself. With EmpCo taking effect in 2026 and coordinated enforcement powers in the background, the safe territory is precise reduction claims and, where used, transparent “contribution” framing backed by durable removals and rigorous due diligence.
mbol.
Apple lost in Frankfurt not because it reduced too little, but because the last 20–25% it tried to “neutralise” rested on short-term forestry contracts that don’t match what consumers reasonably expect when they read “carbon neutral.” The court treated 2050 as the intuitive horizon shaped by the Paris Agreement. Leases expiring in 2029 did not clear that bar.
What Apple actually did
From 2023 onward, Apple marketed select Apple Watch models as “carbon neutral.” The company cut product footprints by around three-quarters through cleaner electricity in manufacturing, high recycled content, and logistics that shift at least half of shipments by weight to ocean and rail instead of air. It also said it would match the electricity customers use to charge the watches with renewable energy. Only the residual was covered with nature-based credits. Apple’s own environmental reports and specs spell out the “50% non-air shipping” and matched-charging elements.
The watch still emitted several kilograms of CO₂e over its life. Apple relied on forestry credits in Latin America to claim “neutrality.” In Germany, the focus fell on projects in Paraguay.
Why the claim failed in Frankfurt
Judges looked past the reductions and focused on permanence. Apple’s offsets came from a forestry project in Paraguay based on eucalyptus plantations. According to the court and summaries of the ruling, leases for roughly 75% of the project area run only until 2029, and Apple could not show binding rights beyond that date. The panel held that a reasonable consumer reading “CO₂-neutral product” would expect compensation to endure roughly to mid-century, in line with the Paris Agreement. Short leases that end in 2029, plus the reversal risk of fast-growing plantation forestry, made the neutrality headline misleading under §5(1) UWG. The case is 3-06 O 8/24; the Hessian judiciary note and multiple contemporaneous reports confirm the lease-term finding.
A brief, non-dispositive note on ecology: large-scale eucalyptus monocultures tend to support lower biodiversity than native, mixed forests and can heighten fire and water-stress risks, which in turn undermines long-term carbon storage stability. Recent reviews and case syntheses show that mixed-species or more diverse stands are generally more resilient than monocultures, while plantation eucalypts can reduce local diversity and increase vulnerability to disturbance. Those ecological concerns were not the core legal test in Frankfurt, but they explain why monoculture plantations are a poor vehicle for decades-long “neutrality” promises.
The ruling did not throw out Apple’s reduction work. It found the “neutral” label misleading because the offsets couldn’t credibly neutralise emissions over the period consumers would assume.
The new rulebook companies must read against
German courts were already tightening green claims. In 2024, the Federal Court of Justice held that “climate neutral” is misleading unless you immediately explain how neutrality is achieved and distinguish reductions from compensation. In 2023, the Berlin court in HelloFresh said essential clarifications can’t be hidden behind a QR code or link. Those lines of reasoning set the table for Apple.
At the EU level, the Empowering Consumers Directive is law and will apply from 27 September 2026. Among other things, it blacklists environmental neutrality claims for products when they are based on offsetting and cracks down on vague labels. National authorities can deploy the EU’s coordinated enforcement regime with penalties up to 4 percent of turnover for widespread infringements. The separate Green Claims Directive, which would require pre-verification of voluntary claims, is paused and uncertain after June 2025; plan for it, but don’t assume timing.
What would have worked
A credible path was available that fits both the science and the law.
First, keep the reductions and talk about them plainly. “This model emits X kg CO₂e cradle-to-grave, down Y% from the 2019 baseline. We achieved this via 100% clean electricity in manufacturing, higher recycled content, and shifting more than 50% of shipment weight to non-air modes.” That is factual, specific, and supported by Apple’s own disclosures.
Second, stop short of “neutral.” If you compensate residuals, label it a contribution and explain how, without implying the product is neutral. The Frankfurt logic and BGH line make absolute neutrality claims high-risk even when reductions are strong.
Third, if you do compensate, use credits that genuinely match the atmospheric lifetime of CO₂. The Oxford Offsetting Principles push companies toward durable removals by 2050; the Integrity Council’s Core Carbon Principles set a quality floor. Biochar, enhanced rock weathering, and DACCS offer storage measured in centuries to millennia, consistent with the consumer-expectation horizon the court recognised. Forestry can be part of a portfolio only if land tenure and management secure permanence on equivalent timescales.
Fourth, hard-wire legal due diligence into procurement. Don’t rely on a registry logo. Test land tenure, replanting obligations, buffer mechanics, reversal insurance, method eligibility under ICVCM, and verifier independence. Document it. If you cannot evidence permanence and additionality in public, do not make a claim that depends on them.
How to say it: claims that survive scrutiny
A strong claim is specific, measurable, and time-bound.
“Cradle-to-grave emissions of this watch are 8–12 kg CO₂e, reduced by at least 75% versus our 2019 baseline. We achieved this by sourcing 100% clean electricity for manufacturing, using high recycled content materials, and shipping 50% or more of products by ocean and rail. We make a separate annual climate contribution to durable carbon removal equal to our remaining emissions.” That’s the spirit courts have been steering brands toward. The numbers and levers here reflect Apple’s public documents; the removal language reflects Oxford/ICVCM guidance rather than a neutrality promise
The lesson for marketing and compliance teams
Reduction still wins. Apple’s manufacturing energy, use of recycled materials, and logistics shifts are substantial. Where it stumbled was the last mile: permanence and language. After Frankfurt, “neutral” is a trap unless you can prove compensation lasts on the order of the climate problem itself. With EmpCo taking effect in 2026 and coordinated enforcement powers in the background, the safe territory is precise reduction claims and, where used, transparent “contribution” framing backed by durable removals and rigorous due diligence.