Mayanna Berrin v. Delta Air Lines Inc. is an ongoing civil action lawsuit brought by the law firm Haderlein and Kouyoumdjian LLP (on behalf of Mayanna Berrin) against Delta Air Lines. In their complaint, the plaintiffs argue that Delta Air Lines' advertising claim of carbon neutrality is false and misleading, in violation of California state advertising statutes.
From 2020 onwards, Delta Air Lines pledged to go carbon-neutral, subsequently branding itself as "the world's first carbon-neutral airline."[1] This claim is being disputed by the plaintiff, Mayanna Berrin, who criticized Delta's claim as being false (alleging that Delta knowingly relied on carbon offsets that did not actually counteract emissions), and argued that the misleading statements led people to buy tickets on Delta flights, when they otherwise would not have done so.[1] Delta, however, countered this argument by stating that the plaintiff's claim lacked legal merit, because the statutes they were accused of violating are preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act. Delta has filed a motion to dismiss the claims brought under the preempted statutes.
Background
Airlines are becoming increasingly conscious of reducing and offsetting their respective emissions of greenhouse gasses, thereby reducing their impact on climate change.[2] They hope to balance the amount of carbon emissions being produced by airlines with the amount of carbon each airline removes from the atmosphere. This balance is measured in carbon equivalent or CO2e emissions. Airlines generally use emission reductions, carbon offsets, and investment in sustainable practices to strive towards achieving carbon neutrality. Emission reductions include the practices of investing in more fuel-efficient aircraft, optimizing flight routes, improving ground operations, and adopting sustainable aviation fuel to minimize the carbon footprint of each individual flight. Carbon offsets compensate for emissions that cannot be reduced, so airlines invest in reforestation projects, renewable energy generation, energy efficiency initiatives, and more. Airlines will also invest in creating sustainable practices within their own companies by utilizing more energy-efficient facilities and incorporating more environmentally friendly technologies in the production of aircraft (more fuel-efficient airplanes when replacing older aircraft), maintenance, etc.[3][1][4]
Airline companies need to meet certain environmental and carbon emission standards to operate, or they will be charged for their excessive emissions. Not following, or adhering to, said standards may result in the airlines having to pay higher landing fees, or restrictions on how many flights will be allowed to depart, or arrive, at a given airport. A few airlines are legally required to report their carbon emissions; these include airlines that fly within the continent of Europe, and listed companies are required to report their emissions as well under the Companies Act 2006 (Strategic and Directors' Reports) Regulations 2013.[5]
Delta Air Lines' carbon neutrality claims
Since March 2020, the phrase "the world's first carbon-neutral airline" has been used by Delta many times. The Plaintiff's complaint states that Delta used it in their marketing (advertisements and merchandise) and public expressions (LinkedIn posts, press releases, and podcasts).[6]
Delta, at the time, was involved in the voluntary carbon offset market to reach its goal. As of 2021, they claim they were entirely offsetting their carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions through renewable energy, agricultural forestry, land use, and renewable offsets.[2]
As of November 2023, Delta states they are committed to net-zero by 2050" on their sustainability webpage.[7] They aim to achieve this by claiming that they are reducing 10 percent of fossil fuels and jet fuel with sustainable aviation fuel and replacing 20 aircraft that were used pre-2019 with 25 percent more fuel-efficient seat aircraft. Delta also aims to reduce 4,900,000lb (2,200,000kg) per year of single-use plastics by their switch to 100 percent recycled plastic bottle bedding, reusable service wear, and new, more sustainable types of wine and handcrafted kits.[7]
Delta's carbon neutrality claims were discovered to possibly contain illegitimate carbon offset credits when more research was done. The plaintiff discovered that the offsets that Delta had been purchasing were provably false, due to a variety of problems. They were seen to not make a real impact, as these projects were to have occurred with or without the offsets being purchased, and these projects were seen to have nonimmediate effects which means that businesses like Delta are paying for future emissions reductions rather than current ones. Additionally, these offsets were seen to have inaccurate accounting and impermanent project lives.[6] Because their carbon neutrality claim at the time was based on their use of these carbon offsets, this evidence is used to try and prove that the phrase was inaccurate and misleading.[6]
Lawsuit
This civil action lawsuit was filed by Mayanna Berrin (represented by attorneys Jonathan Haderlein and Krikor Kouyoumdjian) on May 30, 2023, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against Delta Air Lines Inc. The judge assigned to the case is Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong. On August 18, 2023, Delta motioned for dismissal of the case, which is currently pending a judicial decision. This case alleges that Delta's statements violateCalifornia's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Cal. Civil Code §§ 1750, et seq:[6]
(ii) violation of California's False Advertising, Business and Professions Code § 17500, et seq. ("FAL")[6]
(iii) Unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent trade practices in violation of California's Business and Professions Code § 17200."[6]
Mayanna Berrin is a resident of Glendale, California who has purchased flights from the defendant on multiple occasions. She claims that before buying these tickets, she witnessed their use of the phrase "the world's first carbon-neutral airline" and it led her to believe that Delta was currently a carbon-neutral business.[6]
Delta Airlines is one of the leading airlines in the world. Headquartered in Atlanta, the airline flies regionally and internationally, including to the state of California where this case comes out of.[6]
Summary of Mayanna Berrin's key arguments and evidence
Delta has grossly misrepresented its impact on the environment to its consumers through its use of words across a variety of business aspects.[6]
Delta's use of the phrase "the world's first carbon-neutral airline" would lead consumers to believe that Delta is currently carbon-neutral, leading them to use this information when deciding which airline to purchase tickets from.[6]
Delta's collaboration with carbon offset companies has proven to have a wide variety of problems that led to Delta misrepresenting how much of an impact its actions have on the environment. Berrin cites proof from scientists and government regulators who back up this claim.[6]
Due to there being a market premium for sustainable brands, the putative class was wronged.[6]
Summary of Delta's key arguments and evidence
Although Delta has not filed any legal responses, a spokesperson has stated that they believe this lawsuit is without any legal merit and have motioned for dismissal of the case.[2]
This spokesperson has also stated that, on their own, Delta has already transitioned away from the carbon offsets brought up in this lawsuit and is using different measures to combat its emissions.[2]
Court decision and consequences
When addressing the possible liability of Delta in this case, there is no knowledge on whether they will be found guilty of misleading customers, as they have motioned for dismissal and the legal battle has just started as of November 2023, therefore, no real information on how the case will turn out is available. Delta continues to claim that the lawsuit has no legal merit and denies any allegations directed toward the company.[1] However, the plaintiff's counsel has cited scientific and journalistic evidence that the carbon credit system in which Delta is involved has major holes that are not actually offsetting the amount of carbon promised to be offset.[6]
At this point, there have been no repercussions to speak of in terms of fines, penalties, or corrective actions imposed on Delta. This court case may have negative impacts on Delta, as court cases typically come with fines, reparations, and legal fees associated with them.
The airline industry as a whole will be impacted as the existence of the lawsuit and any coverage may cause companies to become more concerned about whether the carbon credits they are purchasing are actually offsetting the emissions that they too claim they are.[1]
Public reaction and media coverage
Media sites like The Guardian, U.S. News & World Report, and many more have covered this story, and more articles are being published as this court case progresses.[1][3] Due to the media bringing this case into the public eye, the general public may start to become more aware of the potential of unreliable carbon offset programs which has the potential for reactions both pro and against both sides of this case.
This case is another example of the public outcry over greenwashing litigation. Climate change litigation or greenwashing litigation is the process by which the public and government hold large corporations accountable for their levels of emissions or exaggerated claims of emissions reductions or offsets. As a result of this lawsuit, consumers have become more aware of airlines' effects on the environment and the exaggerated business realm of carbon offset companies in places like India and Indonesia that are not following through on carbon emissions offset goals.[4]
Impact on the airline industry
The lawsuit against Delta Air Lines has the potential to bring up the veracity of carbon neutrality claims made by airlines as further research into their credibility. As a result, other airlines may encounter allegations similar to those Delta is currently facing. Companies will likely become more cautious when making carbon-neutral or environmentally friendly assertions in their marketing materials.[5]
Furthermore, airlines may want to provide more transparent and verifiable data concerning their claims of carbon neutrality. This could involve sharing detailed information about their emissions reduction strategies and the specific carbon offset projects they support to try and gain the trust of environmentally concerned individuals.[5] New regulations may also be implemented by regulatory bodies that want to become more proactive in monitoring and regulating carbon neutrality claims in the airline industry. This could lead to stricter enforcement of existing regulations or the development of new guidelines to ensure accurate and transparent reporting of environmental efforts. The Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) program, operated by the International Civil Aviation Organization, which is aimed at addressing international aviation emissions, may also receive renewed attention and scrutiny.[5]
The Mayanna Berrin v. Delta Airlines Inc. case may serve as an example of how legal action can impact the airline industry's advertising practices, regulatory landscape, and consumer awareness concerning carbon neutrality if this case continues in court, either way it goes. Airlines may need to adapt to a changing environment where the accuracy of their environmental claims is scrutinized and adherence to industry standards and regulations is essential. Ultimately, this case may lead to a more transparent and accountable approach to environmental responsibility in the airline industry, benefiting both the environment and consumers, but as of now, no real impact is known.[5]
The International Air Transport Association is a trade association of the world's airlines founded in 1945. IATA has been described as a cartel since, in addition to setting technical standards for airlines, IATA also organized tariff conferences that served as a forum for price fixing.
Greenwashing, also called green sheen, is a form of advertising or marketing spin that deceptively uses green PR and green marketing to persuade the public that an organization's products, goals, or policies are environmentally friendly. Companies that intentionally adopt greenwashing communication strategies often do so to distance themselves from their environmental lapses or those of their suppliers.
Carbon offsetting is a carbon trading mechanism that enables entities such as governments or businesses to compensate for (i.e. “offset”) their greenhouse gas emissions by investing in projects that reduce, avoid, or remove emissions elsewhere. When an entity invests in a carbon offsetting program, it receives carbon credits. These "tokens" are then used to account for net climate benefits from one entity to another. A carbon credit or offset credit can be bought or sold after certification by a government or independent certification body. One carbon offset or credit represents a reduction, avoidance or removal of one metric Tonne of carbon dioxide or its carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2e).
Business action on climate change includes a range of activities relating to climate change, and to influencing political decisions on climate change-related regulation, such as the Kyoto Protocol. Major multinationals have played and to some extent continue to play a significant role in the politics of climate change, especially in the United States, through lobbying of government and funding of climate change deniers. Business also plays a key role in the mitigation of climate change, through decisions to invest in researching and implementing new energy technologies and energy efficiency measures.
Green brands are those brands that consumers associate with environmental conservation and sustainable business practices.
The City of Unley is a local government area in the Adelaide metropolitan region. It is located directly south of the Adelaide city centre.
Carbon accounting is a framework of methods to measure and track how much greenhouse gas (GHG) an organization emits. It can also be used to track projects or actions to reduce emissions in sectors such as forestry or renewable energy. Corporations, cities and other groups use these techniques to help limit climate change. Organizations will often set an emissions baseline, create targets for reducing emissions, and track progress towards them. The accounting methods enable them to do this in a more consistent and transparent manner.
Aircraft engines produce gases, noise, and particulates from fossil fuel combustion, raising environmental concerns over their global effects and their effects on local air quality. Jet airliners contribute to climate change by emitting carbon dioxide, the best understood greenhouse gas, and, with less scientific understanding, nitrogen oxides, contrails and particulates. Their radiative forcing is estimated at 1.3–1.4 that of CO2 alone, excluding induced cirrus cloud with a very low level of scientific understanding. In 2018, global commercial operations generated 2.4% of all CO2 emissions.
A green company, also known as an environmentally friendly or sustainable business, is an organization that conducts itself in a way that minimizes harm to the environment. Examples of these actions may include the conservation of natural resources, efforts to reduce carbon emissions, a reduction of waste creation, and support of ecological conservation. Green companies often implement environmentally responsible practices across their entire value chain, from sourcing raw materials to manufacturing processes and distribution.
An aviation biofuel is a biofuel used to power aircraft and is a sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). The International Air Transport Association (IATA) considers it a key element in reducing the environmental impact of aviation. Aviation biofuel is used to decarbonize medium and long-haul air travel. These types of travel generate the most emissions, and could extend the life of older aircraft types by lowering their carbon footprint. Synthetic paraffinic kerosene (SPK) refers to any non-petroleum-based fuel designed to replace kerosene jet fuel, which is often, but not always, made from biomass.
Belgrave Trust was a social enterprise firm that sold carbon offsets. It claimed that revenues derived through subscribers and the sale of products were used to offset greenhouse gases through the purchase and retirement of carbon offset securities that fund projects creating clean energy or reducing emissions.
PAS 2060 is a specification detailing how to demonstrate carbon neutrality produced and published by the British Standards Institution.
American Electric Power Company v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court, in an 8–0 decision, held that corporations cannot be sued for greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) under federal common law, primarily because the Clean Air Act (CAA) delegates the management of carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Brought to court in July 2004 in the Southern District of New York, this was the first global warming case based on a public nuisance claim.
Airport Carbon Accreditation is a global carbon management programme for airports that independently assesses and recognises airports' efforts to manage and reduce their CO2 emissions. Aircraft emissions, which are many times greater than airport emissions, are not included in the programme. The airport industry accounts for 5% of the air transport sector’s total carbon emissions.
The Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) is a carbon offset and carbon reduction scheme to lower CO2 emissions for international flights, to curb the aviation impact on climate change.
Climate change litigation, also known as climate litigation, is an emerging body of environmental law using legal practice to set case law precedent to further climate change mitigation efforts from public institutions, such as governments and companies. In the face of slow climate change politics delaying climate change mitigation, activists and lawyers have increased efforts to use national and international judiciary systems to advance the effort. Climate litigation typically engages in one of five types of legal claims: Constitutional law, administrative law, private law (challenging corporations or other organizations for negligence, nuisance, etc., fraud or consumer protection, or human rights.
Global Carbon Council (GCC), formerly known as Global Carbon Trust (GCT), is MENA region's first voluntary carbon offsetting program. It facilitates global stakeholders in implementing climate actions through provision of voluntary carbon offsetting program.
The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) is a collaboration between the CDP, the United Nations Global Compact, World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), with a global team composed of people from these organisations. Since 2015, more than 1,000 companies have joined the initiative to set a science-based climate target.
District of Columbia v. Exxon Mobil Corp. is an ongoing lawsuit filed against Exxon Mobil Corporation and ExxonMobil Oil Corporation by the District of Columbia (D.C.). This case is one of a long list of lawsuits filed against ExxonMobil including environmental and ethical wrongdoings.
Global net zero emissions describes the state where emissions of carbon dioxide due to human activities and removals of these gases are in balance over a given period. It is often called simply net zero. In some cases, emissions refers to emissions of all greenhouse gases, and in others it refers only to emissions of carbon dioxide. To reach net zero targets requires actions to reduce emissions. One example would be by shifting from fossil fuel energy to sustainable energy sources. Organizations often offset their residual emissions by buying carbon credits.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
