Apple Watch Not CO2-Neutral: German Court Rules Against Apple’s Climate Claims
Berlin (Reuters) – The much-publicized claim that the Apple Watch is a carbon-neutral device has been struck down in Germany. A Frankfurt regional court has ruled that Apple can no longer advertise its Apple Watch as “CO2-neutral,” after finding that the U.S. tech giant misled consumers with unsubstantiated environmental claims.
This ruling marks a significant setback for Apple, which had widely promoted the Apple Watch as “our first CO2-neutral product.” According to the court, Apple’s claims were not only unfounded but also violated German competition law. The case was initiated by the environmental group Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH), which accused Apple of greenwashing—a practice where companies exaggerate or misrepresent their sustainability efforts.
Why the Court Declared the Apple Watch Not CO2-Neutral
Apple’s marketing suggested that the Apple Watch was manufactured and sold with net-zero carbon emissions, primarily through offsetting projects. The company highlighted a reforestation project in Paraguay, where it leases land to plant eucalyptus trees. These plantations, Apple claimed, offset the emissions generated in the production and distribution of the smartwatch.
However, the Frankfurt court found several flaws in this argument:
-
Lack of Long-Term Security – 75% of the leases for the project land are only guaranteed until 2029. There is no binding commitment to extend them, meaning the sustainability of the carbon offset project is uncertain.
-
Ecological Concerns – Ecologists have long criticized eucalyptus monocultures, calling them “green deserts.” These plantations may store carbon temporarily but harm biodiversity and consume excessive water resources, reducing their environmental value.
-
Limited Effectiveness – Carbon storage in such plantations is temporary and cannot fully compensate for the emissions created during manufacturing.
Based on these findings, the court concluded that Apple’s CO2-neutral label for the Apple Watch was misleading.
Apple’s Response
Despite the ruling, Apple defended its environmental strategy. A company spokesperson said the decision still recognized Apple’s “rigorous approach to carbon neutrality.” However, Apple declined to confirm whether it would appeal the judgment.
Earlier in June, Apple had warned that cases like this could “discourage credible corporate climate action.” Nevertheless, the company is already preparing for upcoming regulatory changes. Under new EU rules set to take effect in September 2026, companies will face stricter restrictions on using terms like “carbon neutral” unless they can demonstrate robust scientific proof. Apple is expected to phase out the “carbon neutral” label on its products in compliance with these laws.
The Wider Context: Big Tech and Carbon Offsetting
Apple is not the only major tech company facing scrutiny for carbon offset projects. Meta and Microsoft have also invested in reforestation initiatives in Latin America, trading financial support for carbon credits. However, environmentalists argue that such schemes often serve as temporary solutions that allow corporations to market themselves as green while continuing high-emission practices.
The Apple Watch Not CO2-Neutral ruling adds momentum to this criticism. By questioning the integrity of offsets, the German court has effectively signaled that companies cannot rely solely on tree plantations or similar projects to justify carbon neutrality claims.
Environmentalists Hail the Ruling
For Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH), the organization that filed the lawsuit, the decision is a victory against corporate greenwashing. DUH leader Juergen Resch stated:
“The supposed storage of CO2 in commercial eucalyptus plantations is limited to just a few years, the contractual guarantees for the future are not sufficient, and the ecological integrity of monoculture areas is not guaranteed.”
The group believes the case sets a precedent, ensuring that companies face greater accountability for sustainability claims and that consumers are not misled by vague marketing language.
What This Means for Consumers
The Apple Watch Not CO2-Neutral ruling highlights the growing importance of transparency in environmental advertising. As consumers become more eco-conscious, misleading claims can damage trust in even the most respected brands. While Apple continues to invest in renewable energy and recycling initiatives, this court decision underscores that ambitious marketing statements must be backed by long-term, verifiable results.
For buyers in Germany and beyond, the ruling serves as a reminder to critically evaluate sustainability claims, especially when they rely heavily on offsetting rather than direct reductions in emissions.
Google Pixel Watch 3 LTE Sees Up to $209 Discount from Original Price