Vuse Class Action Lawsuit Challenges Carbon Neutrality Claims for Vape Products

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action lawsuit alleges that tobacco giant British American Tobacco (BAT) and several subsidiaries have overstated the apparent carbon neutrality of Vuse vaporizer devices and consumable products.

Get the latest open class action lawsuits sent to your inbox. Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter.

The 47-page lawsuit says that BAT, R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Reynolds America Inc. have heavily promoted the Vuse Solo, Vuse Vibe, Vuse Ciro and Vuse Alto as the first-ever global carbon-neutral vape products, claiming that their production and use releases no net addition of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

However, the suit contends that the claims of carbon neutrality are misleading, as the four carbon emissions-offsetting forestry projects on which the representations overwhelmingly rely do not provide legitimate carbon reductions. In particular, the case alleges that the forestry projects—the Guanaré Forest Plantations Project in Uruguay and three Improved Forest Management (IFM) projects based in China—fund routine commercial forestry activities that would have occurred regardless of the companies’ involvement or otherwise serve to protect forested land whose risk of deforestation was negligible.

According to the complaint, an item is considered “carbon neutral” if its production and use nets no additional release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. To achieve this, companies can balance, or “offset,” carbon emissions by providing for emissions reductions elsewhere, often by purchasing “carbon credits” in environmental offset projects, the filing explains.

Importantly, to constitute a legitimate carbon offset, projects must result in carbon reductions that would not have occurred without the existence of the initiative, the Vuse lawsuit states.

In light of this, the suit asserts that the vape brand’s claim of carbon neutrality is deceptive because it is based on four “ineffective and redundant” offset projects that fail to provide genuine environmental benefits.

For one, the Guanaré Forest Plantations Project purports to generate carbon credits through tree-planting efforts, the case says. However, the complaint argues that “these trees would have been planted regardless because the plantations would have been financially viable and established even without receiving financial incentives from carbon credits.”

In addition, the forest-protection initiatives in China—namely, the Yunnan Xishuangbanna IFM Project, the Hubei Hongshan IFM Project and the Inner Mongolia Wu’erqihan IFM Project—involve forests that were already at low risk of deforestation prior to the intervention, the filing alleges.

“In short, as to these four projects, the carbon reductions would have occurred regardless of [the companies’] involvement or the projects’ existence,” the lawsuit states. “And because [the defendants’] carbon neutrality claims are predicated on the efficacy and legitimacy of these projects, [the companies’] carbon neutrality claims are false and misleading.”

The suit contends that BAT and its co-defendants market Vuse products as environmentally responsible in a bid to capitalize on growing public concern for the climate crisis.

Consumers paid a premium price for vape products they were led to believe were carbon neutral, the case says. The complaint argues that Vuse customers would not have paid as much, or purchased the items at all, had they known the representations were false.

The lawsuit looks to represent all California residents who, after May 28, 2021 and within the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased any Vuse-brand vaporizer device or consumable product—including the Vuse Solo, Vuse Vibe, Vuse Ciro or Vuse Alto—for purposes other than resale.

Learn all about the legal process: What is a class action lawsuit?