A federal judge ruled that a passenger pursuing a class action lawsuit against Delta Air Lines can keep pursuing damages after it purported to be “the world’s first carbon-neutral airline,” even though they’re a fossil-fuel burning carrier with an aging fleet, own an oil refinery (and interest in a private jet company), and the claims turn out not to be true. The court rejected Delta’s the latest effort to end the case over its bogus environmental claims.
Companies were leaning into ESG in 2020. Greenwashing was de rigueur. But this lawsuit fascinates me because it raises the question of whether it was all just marketing puffery, or if there’s real liability for claims that don’t come true? And why is it that airlines get a legal get out of jail free card on this?
U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong’s July 28, 2026 ruling lets the plaintiff try to prove that Delta violated California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act. They didn’t get an injunction, though, because Delta stopped promoting they were carbon-neutral on March 31, 2022, and the lead plaintiff acknowledged understanding Delta’s current marketing goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.
The original lawsuit was filed on May 30, 2023 and here’s the third amended complaint.
Delta’s Carbon Neutrality Claims Were Based On Bogus Offsets
Delta announced in February 2020 that it would spend $1 billion over ten years and become carbon neutral on March 1. The message was that Delta had “become the first carbon neutral airline on a global basis” and had been “carbon neutral since March 2020.” This was in press releases, social media, a podcast, Delta.com banners, a paid campaign, seatback screens and an in-flight napkin.
As flights continued burning jet fuel, Delta treated emissions reductions purchased elsewhere as balancing that fuel burn, with the complaint describing plans to spend more than $30 million on credits for about 13 million metric tons of 2020 emissions and Delta saying it ultimately spent more than $280 million on credits from March 2020 through March 2022. Much of that money was apparently wasted.
- I was skeptical when Delta announced carbon neutrality in 2020 because carbon credits rely on assumptions about events that never occur (how much deforestation might happen without paying someone not to chop down trees). It turns out to be ripe for fraud and Delta’s credits in particular turned out to be highly problematic.
- Delta added canned wine, bamboo cutlery and recycled polyester bedding to its environmental story in a 2022 “eco-conscious” amenities announcement.
Delta promoted canned wine beside plastic cups (!) in its 2022 “eco-conscious” amenities announcement. Credit: Delta
A carbon credit project promises to preserve a forest. The credit has value if the trees faced a real threat, the payment caused the protection, and nobody else claims the same reduction. Each credit depends on a counterfactual claim about the world where that specific credit was never purchased.
The lawsuit is over the credits in Delta’s portfolio including funky accounting, preservation projects that would have proceeded anyway, delayed reductions in emissions and double counting.
The Sham Carbon Credits Became National News
Delta used to brag about its involvement with the Kariba project in Zimbabwe. Bloomberg‘s Matt Levine calls the folks involved “ESG Consultant[s] But Evil.”
As Levine explains, “(1) the money kind of disappeared and (2) a lot of the carbon credits turned out to be fake.” The New Yorker‘s Heidi Blake has the owner of the forest generating the credits on the record, “I don’t know what you’re going to report on this, and I hope to God it’s not all of it, because I probably will go to jail.”
It turns out that they sort of made up numbers as a benchmark for how much deforestation would have happened without a forest’s preservation. There was a reference forest nearby and it basically showed not so much deforestation was happening without the preservations. So the credits weren’t really protecting forests. And they oversold the credits (effectively selling the same fake credits to multiple buyers). Matt Levine:
The problem with this anti-deforestation project was that there was too little deforestation. That seems good? For the climate? But bad for the people hawking carbon credits. The idealistic Muench pointed out the problem, and the now-jaded Heuberger was like “meh still fine”:
Is There A Strong Case For Damages?
California law bars a business from misrepresenting the characteristics, benefits or quality of a service. A key question is whether anyone bought Delta tickets, or paid more to fly Delta, because they were deceived about Delta’s eco-consciousness.
Delta argued that the Airline Deregulation Act preempts the case because state law can’t regulate airline rates and services. The judge rejected that argument because California left Delta free to choose its environmental program, and treated carbon offsets as investments separate from the flight itself.
This is going to be an issue on appeal. In Zajac v. United Airlines another federal judge (in Maryland) held that the Airline Deregulation Act preempted a similar greenwashing claim tied to ticket prices.
But the strongest argument Delta has may be that the lead plaintiff testified that carbon-neutral advertising played no role in the four ticket purchases used to support her claim. An ex-boyfriend, her parents and an employer paid for some of her travel, with schedule, convenience and SkyMiles also entering her choices.
She later submitted a declaration and deposition corrections backing away from that.
The proposed class includes California residents exposed to the campaign from September 1, 2021 through March 31, 2022 who bought Delta tickets beginning September 1, 2021. Delta says 1,452,601 people with at least one California address bought a ticket between March 1, 2020 and March 31, 2022.
Delta will try to break up any class because what each customer saw depends on where they look (press releases and social posts, Delta.com rotating banners, while napkins or seatback screens reached passengers after they had bought a ticket).
Meanwhile, they have survey data showing the carbon neutral claims barely resonated – that 0.1% of survey respondents and zero in California mentioned the environment or carbon neutrality when asked why they chose an airline. What a waste! And they’ll argue they acted in good faith buying the credits, that it’s not their fault they turned out to be a sham.
Delta Probably Prevails
Delta made an absolute claim about current carbon neutrality and relied on a voluntary market with real weaknesses to deliver on the claim. Indeed, they name even say that it’s “hard-to-abate” aviation emissions and that its existing fleet, current technology and available fuel cannot deliver its long-term emissions goals.
But the plaintiff is going to have a hard time demonstrating reliance on the claims in buying tickets and paying a premium to do so. They’re going to have a hard time certifying the class. And Delta has strong Airline Deregulation Act preemption arguments for appeal.
Don’t care. Carbon credits have been a known scam for a long time now. I want to hold Delta responsible for clean planes, good service, and reasonable fares.
Ed is going carbon free for his hair products only, moving from petroleum-based to a dry wax. His non-revenue BFF(s) approve.
Delta and DJT – both annoying blowhards and whatever they say should be closely examined.
@ken – are you in the class action lawsuit for TDS? It sounds like you could win a ton of money..
Greedy ambulance chaser. No way this suit should see the light of day. First basis is proving “harm” and that would be a high bar. Then you have general waivers for marketing materials. Finally I’m sure Delta’s corporate structure separates the various business entities so they can claim the “airline” (a separate legal entity) is climate neutral without worrying about all the other business entities.
Gary – you are becoming more petty on a daily basis. Not sure if it is laziness (Reddit as a source), looking for quick clicks, cheapness on your part or spectrum related issues but I am finally dropping you as I find you basically worthless at this point and get much more meaningful info (include most of what you report) from other sources. Hell even TPG is better than you now which is sad!
Delta was stupid to claim they were “carbon neutral.” Obviously, an airline that spends billions on jet fuel can’t be. But social contagions often lead to short-term poor judgment, and that seems to be what happened here. I think an apology could be in order, but monetary damages would be stupid. I’d love to see somebody prove that they flew Delta more because they believed its carbon offset bs.
Corporations should pay up for lying to people. Duhhhh
Any lawsuit payout is only going to be counterproductive to getting closer to the end goal of being pro-environment. These lawsuits seem like a waste of money except for the plaintiffs lawyers who will cash in.
@Thing 1 — All the above sounds better. Care about corporations not lying, and also clean planes, good service, and reasonable fares.
@Michael Mainello, @Retired Gambler — You two need to cry a little harder. Whining ‘TDS’ isn’t enough. Add a few ‘woke’ and ‘DEI’ for emphasis. Then finish it off with shouting that all your perceived enemies are “Communists!” (It’s foolproof. You got this, fellas!)
@1990 – Ever the comodian. Delta shouldn’t lie about being carbon neutral, we need carbon for plants to flourish and convert CO2 to oxygen. As far as suing them, whatever the court says, but the lawsuit is self is stupid.
Now I think all the Globull Warming stuff, those guys should be sued. CO2 is only .04% of our atmosphere and has been worse than it is now. Too bad all politicians can’t be sued for lying – both parties.
@Michael Mainello — Finally, someone ‘gets’ my schtick!
Real-talk, though: I’m all for clean air, clean water, and clean food, along with the massive economic and job opportunities that come with renewables, solar, batteries, and nuclear power. It’s foolish that we’re abdicating leadership (and critical rare-earth supply chains) to China on those fronts.
That said, aviation fuel replacement is a different beast. Scientifically, technologically, and economically, jet fuel alternatives just aren’t there at-scale right now. Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) is mostly a marketing buzzword at this stage rather than a viable operational substitute.
Airlines need to stop making claims they can’t back up. KLM already learned that lesson the hard way in Dutch court over their “Fly Responsibly” greenwashing campaign, and Delta shouldn’t be surprised that claiming to be “carbon neutral” while operating an oil refinery caught up to them. If the tech and infrastructure aren’t there yet, just own it and focus on flying clean, on-time planes.
(Yeah, and please do appreciate that the above is coming from me of all people… mhm.)
@1990 “…massive economic and job opportunities that come with renewables, solar, batteries, and nuclear power.” This essentially “if we build it, they (economic benefits) will come”. The economics of the introduction of improved “inputs” requires that the new input be cheaper (including financing of research and start-up costs) or “better” (more energy dense, safer to handle, cleaner, more efficient, more consumer desirable). I think solar, wind, tidal, SAF, hydrogen, etc are going to take so long to get to the break-even point vs petroleum/NG that they’ll be made obsolete by conventional nuclear and fusion first. They may fill small niches here and there, but overall we need to be more targeted in where we put our green investment dollars or we’ll hurt our economy, including jobs, and end up poorer. More green dollars isn’t necessarily more productive.
@1990
“massive economic and job opportunities that come with renewables, solar, batteries, and nuclear power.” I agree, but no government subsidies. We have plenty of wind farms and solar here and more if they can build it. I never understood why solar and wind weren’t co-located. They are not out here anyway. I like nuclear – clean and new designs appear relatively safe. I was stationed in West Germany when Chernoble (sp?) happened.
“It’s foolish that we’re abdicating leadership (and critical rare-earth supply chains) to China on those fronts.” I agree and the current administration is working on it, but it does take time.
@Mark F — No argument on energy density. That’s why SAF and electric planes aren’t taking over anytime soon. But waiting around for fusion while China subsidizes and captures the entire battery, solar, and rare-earth supply chain would be surrender. Nuclear belongs front and center, but we can’t afford to sit out the intermediate ‘tech war’ while waiting for the ‘perfect’ solution.
@Michael Mainello — Glad we agree on nuclear. As for subsidies, every major energy transition in history (including oil, gas, and nuclear) relied on early public capital to de-risk development. The goal shouldn’t be zero government involvement, but using smart investments to lock down domestic manufacturing and supply chain security instead of handing the whole market to China.
@1990 – Hopefully the current crew can do a better job than previous ones.
Carbon credits, lmao, anyone who ever believed paying someone to do what they were going to do anyway is saving the planet is a retard. For that matter, any leftist who spouted the climate change agenda, yet still continues to fly, is a retard. So, it’s not a planetary emergency? Or are you just a disingenuous crony capitalist? Or just a useful idiot?
@Mainello
Still high on the TCS (Trump Cult Syndrome)?
On so many fronts, the whole “greenwashing” movement has turned into a sham. In my industry, we pursue LEED certifications for high-rises, multifamily projects, and other developments. Many of the credits can be obtained through purchased offsets, carbon credits, or other measures that often have little to do with the actual performance of the building.
When I hear an airline claim to be “carbon neutral,” I almost spit out my breakfast laughing. The reality is that many of these certifications and environmental designations rely on highly subjective standards and accounting methodologies. LEED Silver, Gold, Platinum, and similar rankings may sound impressive, but the organizations creating and administering these programs are funded by the very industry seeking the certifications.
A whole cottage industry has emerged around securing these credentials, and in many cases it’s more about navigating the system and writing checks than delivering meaningful environmental benefits. That doesn’t mean every sustainability initiative is worthless, but there is a tremendous amount of marketing hype wrapped around programs that often deserve much closer scrutiny.
I’m more bothered by the prospect of them being held accountable than I am by what they have done.
Makes me wonder if Frontier’s “America’s Greenest Airline” status/promotions are true just because they have the most green paint on their planes? (Yes, I know they have new(er) aircraft and lighter seats thereby using less fuel.)