Germana Carillo A Frankfurt court has ruled Apple’s “carbon neutral” Apple Watch ads misleading, citing unreliable eucalyptus offsets in Paraguay. The company must drop the slogan.
The Regional Court of Frankfurt has ordered Apple to stop advertising its smartwatches as “carbon neutral.” The ruling came after the German environmental group Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) argued that the claim was misleading and violated competition law.
Apple has been promoting “carbon neutral” Apple Watches since 2023, insisting that innovations in design and clean energy have cut emissions by more than 75% for each device. For the remaining share of emissions, the company claimed it was purchasing “high-quality carbon credits” to offset the rest.
The promise of neutrality
Apple presented what it called a “clear and rigorous approach” to decarbonization, focusing on three major areas of a product’s lifecycle: electricity, materials, and transportation. The company argued that unavoidable emissions were balanced by nature-based carbon offset projects.
But DUH wasn’t convinced. The group took the company to court, accusing it of greenwashing and questioning the credibility of the offset schemes.
What the judges found
This month, the Sixth Commercial Chamber in Frankfurt sided with DUH. Judges examined Apple’s claim that it managed a forest project in Paraguay to offset its CO2 emissions. In practice, however, the program relied on eucalyptus plantations grown on leased land. Roughly 75% of those leases expire in 2029 (just four years from now), meaning “there are no secure prospects for the continuation of the project,” the court ruled.
Three Apple Watch models had been marketed as “zero CO2 products.” Yet the proceedings confirmed DUH’s suspicions: the offsets rest largely on eucalyptus monocultures in Paraguay, whose leases will run out soon, with no guarantee of long-term carbon storage. For that reason, the judges said, the advertising was “misleading and unsustainable.”
Even Apple’s so-called buffer accounts, designed to make up for lost leased land after contracts end, were deemed inadequate. The court said they offered no real safeguard that the stored emissions would remain locked away.
Apple’s response
In a statement to SiliconRepublic.com, the company defended its strategy:
“It is important to emphasize that the court has broadly supported our rigorous approach to carbon neutrality. We remain focused on further reducing emissions through industry-leading innovation in clean energy, low-carbon design, and more—work that has put us on track to reach carbon neutrality across our entire supply chain by 2030.”
That may be true, but the ruling makes one thing clear: Apple can no longer market its flagship wearable with the claim that it is already carbon neutral.
The problem with eucalyptus
The case also raises uncomfortable questions about the reliability of offsets themselves. Eucalyptus monocultures are not natural forests. They’re typically grown with heavy reliance on agricultural chemicals such as fipronil—a pesticide notorious for killing bees. The trees grow fast, but they also consume huge amounts of water and are highly flammable in drought conditions. Both factors undermine the long-term stability of any carbon storage the projects are supposed to guarantee.
For now, it remains uncertain whether Apple will appeal. What’s certain is that the company must drop its catchy slogan: “Apple Watch is our first carbon-neutral product.”
