This week, New York Attorney General Letitia James announced a $1.1 million settlement with JBS USA Food Company and JBS USA Food Company Holdings (JBS) over allegations that the meat producer misled consumers about its commitment to reduce its environmental impact. In February 2024, the AG filed suit, alleging that JBS’s consumer-facing statements that it would achieve “net zero” greenhouse gas emissions by 2040 were deceptive “greenwashing” because the company lacked a viable plan to achieve that goal.
As we reported in January, a New York Supreme Court judge dismissed the AG’s complaint (with leave to amend). Following the dismissal, the AG continued to investigate JBS’s net zero statements by issuing a subpoena and, with JBS, agreeing twice to extend the response deadlines. JBS ultimately provided eight sets of documents in response to the subpoena, after which the AG agreed to resolve the matter through an Assurance of Discontinuance in lieu of filing an amended complaint alleging violations of New York consumer protection statutes.
Link to Settlement Terms and Compliance Requirements Settlement Terms and Compliance Requirements
Under the settlement, JBS agreed to remove or revise its existing “Net Zero by 2040” consumer-facing statements on U.S. websites to frame the 2040 target as a “goal” rather than a “pledge” or a “commitment.” Consistent with that promise, the company’s website now refers to the target as an “ambition.” Additionally, if JBS makes any statements indicating it is making progress toward that goal, it must disclose the specific steps or actions it is taking to advance the goal.
JBS also agreed to conduct an annual compliance review of all its U.S. consumer-facing environmental statements—including those published on its websites or in sustainability reports, and made by its officers and directors on behalf of the company—for the next three years. After that period, JBS must ensure that future statements continue to comply with the settlement’s terms.
Moreover, if the AG believes that a U.S. consumer-facing statement requires revision, the AG will notify JBS, and JBS will have 20 days to cure before the AG may commence legal action. If the parties disagree about whether a correction is required, either party may seek the court’s assistance to resolve the issue.
Finally, JBS agreed to pay $1.1 million to Cornell’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences’ New York Soil Health and Resiliency Program to support “climate-smart agriculture” initiatives, subject to Cornell’s approval.
Link to Key Takeaways: Greenwashing Enforcement and Advertising Risks Key Takeaways: Greenwashing Enforcement and Advertising Risks
This settlement highlights the increasing scrutiny of environmental advertising claims, particularly those involving broad, sweeping sustainability goals. Companies that want to announce such goals should be prepared to substantiate not only the end goal but also the feasibility of achieving it and potentially the steps being taken toward that objective.
Here, the AG’s acceptance of framing JBS’s net zero target as an “ambition” or “goal” reflects at least one state regulator’s distinction between aspirational statements and claims that imply a present ability, plan, or certainty of achieving the result. Companies should carefully consider how they characterize long-term sustainability targets in consumer-facing statements.
For more insights into advertising law, bookmark our All About Advertising Law blog and subscribe to our monthly newsletter. To learn more about Venable’s Advertising Law services, click here or contact one of the authors. And listen to the Ad Law Tool Kit Show—a Venable podcast.