1
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HADERLEIN AND KOUYOUMDJIAN LLP
Jonathan Haderlein (Cal. Bar No. 336644)
jhaderlein@handklaw.com
Krikor Kouyoumdjian (Cal. Bar No. 336148)
kkouyoumdjian@handklaw.com
19849 Nordhoff St.
Northridge, California 91324
Telephone: (818) 304-34345
RUSSELL LAW, PC
L. David Russell (Cal. Bar No. 260043)
david@russelllawpc.com
1500 Rosecrans Ave, Suite 500
Manhattan Beach, California 90266
Telephone: (323) 638-7551
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MAYANNA BERRIN, an individual
on her own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
DELTA AIR LINES INC., a Delaware
Corporation,
Defendant.
Case No.:
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:23-cv-04150 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 1 of 41 Page ID #:1
2
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff Mayanna Berrin (“Plaintiff”), by and through her attorneys,
makes the following allegations pursuant to the investigation of her counsel and
based upon information and belief—except as to allegations specifically
pertaining to herself and her counsel, which are based on personal knowledge—
against Defendant Delta Air Lines, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Delta”).
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This is a class action lawsuit, brought on behalf of a putative
nationwide class, or alternatively a putative class of California residents, who
have purchased Defendant’s flights, against Defendant for grossly
misrepresenting the total environmental impact of its business operations in its
advertisements, corporate announcements, and promotional materials and
thereby attaining underserved market share and extracting higher prices from
consumers.
2. Defendant is one of the major commercial airlines in America and
operates flights worldwide.
3. Since March 2020, Defendant has repeatedly touted itself as “the
world’s first carbon-neutral airline” across various channels including
advertisements, press releases, LinkedIn posts, podcasts, and in-flight napkins.
4. Reasonable consumers reviewing these representations would
believe that when taking account of all of Defendant’s carbon emissions and
related green investments, Defendant has not been responsible for releasing any
net additional carbon into the atmosphere since March 2020.
5. Defendant has represented that its airline is “carbon-neutral”
because of carbon offsetting via participation in the voluntary carbon offset
market. The voluntary carbon offset market is a loose arrangement of companies
and NGOs that facilitate investment in green projects such as renewable energy
and prevention of deforestation. In exchange for their investment in these
projects, companies receive “carbon offsets” in the form of credits that purport to
Case 2:23-cv-04150 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 2 of 41 Page ID #:2
3
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
verify the amount of carbon that was not released due to the company’s
investments in the offset market. Defendant’s claim of carbon neutrality
therefore hinges on an underlying set of representations—that since March 2020
Defendant’s investments in the voluntary carbon offset market have entirely
offset the CO2 emissions from Defendant’s global airline operations, such that
Defendant has not been responsible for releasing additional carbon into the
atmosphere during that time.
6. Plaintiff has since discovered that any such representations are
manifestly and provably false. As explained below, foundational issues with the
voluntary carbon offset market make the purchase of said offsets cannot make a
company “carbon neutral.” Even the primary offset vendors offer offsets replete
with the following:
a. inaccurate accounting;
b. non-additional effects on worldwide carbon levels due to the
vendors crediting offsets for projects that would have occurred with
or without offset market investment;
c. non-immediate speculative emissions reductions that will at best
occur over decades, despite crediting purchasers with the sum of
those projected offsets; and
d. impermanent projects subject to disease, natural disasters, and
human intervention
7. These issues are specific to offsets purchased by and relied upon by
Defendant. both scientists and government regulators have specifically identified
Defendant as one of many companies who have grossly misstated the actual
carbon reduction produced by their carbon offset portfolio. At the same time,
Defendant’s operation of a commercial airline causes significant carbon dioxide
(“CO2”) to be released into the atmosphere.
8. Accordingly, Defendant’s claims of “carbon neutrality” are false
Case 2:23-cv-04150 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 3 of 41 Page ID #:3
4
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and misleading; the operation of Defendant’s airline is not carbon neutral, and
consumers would not have purchased tickets on Defendant’s flights, or paid
substantially less for them, had they known the claim of carbon neutrality was
false.
9. Plaintiff and the putative class were wronged by these actions.
There is a significant market premium for green services, and specifically
services that do not contribute to climate change. Since March 2020, Plaintiff
purchased Delta flights at a market premium due to her belief that by flying Delta
she engaged in more ecologically conscious air travel and participated in a global
transition away from carbon emissions. During this entire period, Defendant still
produced massive amounts of CO2, and its reliance on the voluntary carbon
offset market in no way prevents its “carbon-neutral” representations from being
false and misleading. Plaintiff would not have purchased Defendant’s services,
or at the very least would have paid substantially less for those services, if she
understood at the time of purchase that Defendant’s carbon neutral
representations were false.
10. Plaintiff is a purchaser of Defendant’s flights who asserts claims on
behalf of herself and similarly situated purchasers of Defendant’s flights for (i)
violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Cal. Civil
Code §§ 1750, et seq., (ii) violation of California’s False Advertising, Business
and Professions Code § 17500, et seq. (“FAL”), and (iii) Unlawful, unfair, and
fraudulent trade practices in violation of California’s Business and Professions
Code § 17200.
PARTIES
11. Plaintiff Mayanna Berrin is, and at all times alleged in this Class
Action Complaint was, an individual and a resident and therefore citizen of
Glendale, California. Plaintiff Mayanna Berrin makes her permanent home in
Glendale and intends to remain in Glendale.
Case 2:23-cv-04150 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 4 of 41 Page ID #:4
5
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12. Defendant Delta Air Lines, Inc. is a corporation incorporated under
the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Atlanta,
Georgia. Defendant markets, sells, and operates flights worldwide and
throughout the United States, including the state of California. Defendant
operated, marketed, and sold flights during the class period.
13. Plaintiff has purchased flights on the Defendant’s airline multiple
times since March 2020, flying round-trip on Delta on May 6, 2021, November
19, 2021, October 10, 2022, and November 29, 2022.
14. Prior to her purchase of the flights, Plaintiff had viewed
advertisements, LinkedIn posts, and business reporting in which Defendant was
touted as a carbon neutral airline. Plaintiff relied on Defendant’s representations
that Defendant was a carbon neutral business. Plaintiff saw these representations
prior to, and at the time of purchase, and understood them as representations and
warranties that the flight she had purchased was with a carbon neutral business.
15. Plaintiff understood “carbon neutral” to mean that since March 2020
Defendant has removed or offset all the carbon it has emitted on a global basis.
Plaintiff relied on these representations and warranties in deciding to purchase
her flights with Defendant, rather than some other airline. Accordingly, those
representations and warranties were part of the basis of the bargain, in that she
would not have purchased said flights on the same terms had they known those
representations were not true.
16. In making her purchase, Plaintiff paid a substantial price premium
due to the false and misleading carbon neutral claim. Had Plaintiff known that
the carbon neutral claim was false and misleading, Plaintiff would not have paid
a market premium to purchase the flight with Defendant. Plaintiff did not
receive the benefit of the bargain because the flight she purchased was not, in
fact, the product of a carbon neutral business.
///
Case 2:23-cv-04150 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 5 of 41 Page ID #:5
6
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
17. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant
to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2)(A) because: (i)
there are 100 or more class members; (ii) there is an aggregate amount in
controversy exceeding $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs; and (iii)
Plaintiff and Defendant are citizens of different states.
18. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367.
19. The injuries, damages and/or harm upon which this action is based
occurred or arose out of activities engaged in by Defendant within, affecting, and
emanating from, the State of California. Defendant regularly conducts and/or
solicits business in, engages in other persistent courses of conduct in, and/or
derives substantial revenue from services provided to persons in the State of
California. Defendant has engaged, and continues to engage, in substantial and
continuous business practices in the State of California.
20. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2)
because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims
occurred in the State of California, including within this District.
21. In accordance with California Civil Code Section 1780(d), Plaintiff
concurrently files herewith a declaration establishing that, at various times
throughout the class period, she purchased one or more flights with Delta Air
Lines, Inc. while located in California.
22. Plaintiff accordingly alleges that jurisdiction and venue are proper
in this Court.
SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS
A. Environmental Impact is a Compelling Consideration for
Consumers
23. The changing climate is widely appreciated as the crisis of our
Case 2:23-cv-04150 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 6 of 41 Page ID #:6
7
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
times. “Human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gasses
(GHG), have unequivocally caused global warming, with global surface
temperature reaching 1.1°C above 1850-1900 in 2011-2020.”
1
“Observed
warming is human-caused, with warming from greenhouse gasses, dominated by
CO2 and methane (CH4).”
2
24. Given the current omnipresence of climate change issues, interest in
environmentally friendly (“green”) consumption is at an all-time high. For many
consumers, the environmental impact of a company’s supply chain and
operations has a significant impact on their purchasing decisions.
As the
Supreme Court of California has observed, “[t]o some consumers, processes and
places of origin matter. Whether a particular food is kosher or halal may be of
enormous consequence to an observant Jew or Muslim. Whether a wine is from
a particular locale may matter to the oenophile who values subtle regional
differences. Whether a diamond is conflict free
may matter to the fiancée who
wishes not to think of supporting bloodshed and human rights violations each
time she looks at the ring on her finger. And whether food was harvested or a
product manufactured by union workers may matter to still others.” Kwikset
Corp. v. Superior Ct., 51 Cal. 4th 310, 328–29, 246 P.3d 877, 889–90 (2011).
25. The same is true of a company’s environmental footprint. “87% of
consumers will have a more positive image of a company that supports social or
environmental issues. 88% will be more loyal to a company that supports social
or environmental issues. 87% would buy a product with a social and
environmental benefit if given the opportunity.”
3
At the same time, “[i]n spite of
consumers’ willingness to contribute to a greener and more circular economy in
1
HOESUNG LEE ET AL., SYNTHESIS REPORT OF THE IPCC SIXTH ASSESSMENT REPORT 6
(STEVEN K ROSE ET AL. EDS., 2022).
2
Id.
3
Adam Butler, Do Customers Really Care About Your Environmental Impact?, FORBES (Nov.
21, 2018, 8:00 AM), https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesnycouncil/2018/11/21/do-customers-
really-care-about-your-environmental-impact/?
Case 2:23-cv-04150 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 7 of 41 Page ID #:7
8
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
their everyday lives, their active and effective role in this green transition is
hampered by” “a lack of trust in the credibility of environmental claims and the
proliferation of misleading commercial practices related to the environmental
sustainability of products.”
4
26. In the interest of maintaining consumer loyalty and maintaining
market position, companies have rolled out various environmental initiatives to
encourage consumers to continue to purchase their goods and services. These
initiatives have led to accusations of “greenwashing”—referring to when
environmentally harmful goods and services are rebranded as more ecologically
conscious than they actually are in fact. Greenwashing is difficult for consumers
to identify, as by definition, the inherent information asymmetry between
corporations and individual consumers means that “[c]onsumers cannot verify
green attributes directly and must rely on such signals as eco-labels to
authenticate claims.”
5
27.
These efforts are effective at changing consumer perceptions. In
one study, “[o]
ver half (57%) of consumers (in the control condition) believed
that greenwashed claims were a reliable source of
information about a company's
eco-practices. Consumers were also much more likely to agree that greenwashing
energy companies had strong green credentials, compared to energy companies
depicted in a non-greenwashed advertisement.”
6
B. A Brief Primer on the Voluntary Carbon Offset Market
28. “Carbon offsets have become a popular tool in global efforts to
mitigate climate change. These programs work by offering regulated polluters
4
EUROPEAN COMM’N, DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL ON
SUBSTANTIATION AND COMMUNICATION OF EXPLICIT ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIMS (GREEN
CLAIMS DIRECTIVE) 2 (2023).
5
Lucy Atkinson & Sonny Rosenthal, Signaling the Green Sell: The Influence of Eco-Label
Source, Argument Specificity, and Product Involvement on Consumer Trust, JOURNAL OF
ADVERTISING, Feb. 2014, at 33, 33-45.
6
Protecting consumers from Greenwashing, THE BEHAVIOURAL INSIGHTS TEAM BLOG, (Jun.
23, 2022), https://www.bi.team/blogs/there-is-a-growing-epidemic-of-climate-anxiety/
Case 2:23-cv-04150 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 8 of 41 Page ID #:8
9
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the opportunity to increase their own emissions if they subsidize equivalent
emission reductions in unregulated markets.”
7
29. “The most common offsets are based on avoiding the release of
additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, for example by preventing
deforestation or supporting renewable energy projects. The other, much more
expensive, option is to fund programs that actually remove CO2 by planting
forests or employing machines that capture greenhouse gas from the air and store
them away.”
8
30. “Offset logic goes like this: If it is cheaper for a company to buy an
offset that cuts emissions somewhere else instead of in their own operations, then
offsets are cost effective.”
9
“With each investment, the corporations rack up
“credits” for the forests they save or restore, tokens representing a set amount of
carbon dioxide ostensibly kept out of the atmosphere by storing it safely in the
trees.”
10
31. “On its face, the exchange seems like a win-win: Huge sums of
money are funneled into environmental projects, mostly in poor countries with
less ability to pursue large-scale forest protection on their own,” while companies
“can say they’re zeroing out their carbon footprints by offsetting whatever
emissions they can’t eliminate from their own operations with CO₂ reductions
7
RAPHAEL CALEL ET AL., DO CARBON OFFSETS OFFSET CARBON? 1 (GRANTHAM RSCH. INST.
ON
CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE ENV’T ET AL. EDS., 2021).
8
Jess Shankleman & Akshat Rathi, Net Zero Is Hard Work, So Companies Are Going 'Carbon
Neutral', BLOOMBERG (Jul. 19, 2021, 3:50 AM),
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-19/offsets-can-play-a-role-to-make-
companies-carbon-responsible#xj4y7vzkg
9
Betsy Vereckey, How to Choose Carbon Offsets that Actually Cut Emissions, MIT SLOAN
SCH. (Nov. 2, 2022), https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/how-to-choose-carbon-
offsets-actually-cut-emissions
10
Josh Lederman, Corporations are Turning to Forest Credits in the Race to go ‘Carbon
Neutral.’ Advocates Worry About ‘Greenwashing.’, NBC NEWS (Jan. 18, 2023, 12:58 PM),
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/corporations-are-turning-forest-credits-race-go-carbon-
neutral-advocat-rcna7259
Case 2:23-cv-04150 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 9 of 41 Page ID #:9
10
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
elsewhere on the planet.”
11
32. “The last decade has seen billions of carbon offsets issued to project
developers around the world, providing opportunities for regulatory compliance
at lower cost.”
12
Interest in projects that prevent deforestation has risen “[i]n
recent years, [as] a long list of Fortune 500 companies has begun purchasing
credits from forest projects.”
13
“The market for [prevented deforestation carbon
offset credits] credits is estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars, a
number growing year upon year as a cottage industry to sell, trade and
authenticate forest credits has taken shape.”
14
33. Offset programs all promote themselves as nominally certified.
Certification and verification is essential—"when offset programs support
projects that would have been developed anyway, they not only waste the limited
resources available to mitigate climate change but also contribute to climate
change by increasing global emissions.”
15
Unfortunately, the voluntary carbon
offset market is self-regulated, leading to “multiple, competing ‘certification’
standards and a dizzying array of organizations or companies that act as
middlemen, authenticating supposed greenhouse gas reductions and connecting
credit buyers and sellers.”
16
Lack of standardization is not the only barrier to
verification, as the market is also plagued by structural inabilities to track
11
Id.
12
RAPHAEL CALEL ET AL., DO CARBON OFFSETS OFFSET CARBON? 30 (GRANTHAM RSCH.
INST. ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE ENV’T ET AL. EDS., 2021).
13
Josh Lederman, Corporations are Turning to Forest Credits in the Race to go ‘Carbon
Neutral.’ Advocates Worry About ‘Greenwashing.’, NBC NEWS (Jan. 18, 2023, 12:58 PM),
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/corporations-are-turning-forest-credits-race-go-carbon-
neutral-advocat-rcna7259
14
Id.
15
RAPHAEL CALEL ET AL., DO CARBON OFFSETS OFFSET CARBON? 30 (GRANTHAM RSCH.
INST. ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE ENV’T ET AL. EDS., 2021).
16
Josh Lederman, Corporations are Turning to Forest Credits in the Race to go ‘Carbon
Neutral.’ Advocates Worry About ‘Greenwashing.’, NBC NEWS (Jan. 18, 2023, 12:58 PM),
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/corporations-are-turning-forest-credits-race-go-carbon-
neutral-advocat-rcna7259
Case 2:23-cv-04150 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 10 of 41 Page ID #:10
11
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
genuine progress and poor mathematical modeling. For instance, in the context
of prevented deforestation, “[m]easuring activity on the ground in far-flung
rainforests can be incredibly difficult.”
17
And in an analysis of the “world’s
largest carbon offset program,” which primarily arranges for the purchase of
renewable energy offsets, researchers estimated “that at least 52% of approved
carbon offsets were allocated to projects that would very likely have been built
anyway”—“a substantial misallocation of resources.”
18
34. There are also inherent conflicts of interest in the standard offset
verification process. According to ecologist Dan Nepstad, the president of the
Earth Innovation Institute, “the carbon project developer” “hires the auditors. So
the auditors are working for the company that would benefit, really, from a good
result.”
19
That means “it’s up to companies to do their own due diligence to
know that the credits they’re buying are legitimate.”
20
C. Companies Purchase Carbon Offsets to Claim Carbon
Neutrality, and Said Representations are Effective on
Consumers
35. Certain companies have also announced they are “carbon neutral” or
working towards becoming “net-zero.” Climate-related claims that goods,
services, or entities are “carbon neutral” or “100% CO2 compensated” are often
predicated on the company having “offset” its carbon emissions by purchasing
“carbon credits” “generated outside the company’s value chain, for example
from forestry or renewable energy projects.”
21
The basic premise of carbon
17
Id.
18
RAPHAEL CALEL ET AL., DO CARBON OFFSETS OFFSET CARBON? 30 (GRANTHAM RSCH.
INST. ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE ENV’T ET AL. EDS., 2021).
19
Josh Lederman, Corporations are Turning to Forest Credits in the Race to go ‘Carbon
Neutral.’ Advocates Worry About ‘Greenwashing.’, NBC NEWS (Jan. 18, 2023, 12:58 PM),
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/corporations-are-turning-forest-credits-race-go-carbon-
neutral-advocat-rcna7259
20
Id.
21
EUROPEAN COMM’N, DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL ON
SUBSTANTIATION AND COMMUNICATION OF EXPLICIT ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIMS (GREEN
CLAIMS DIRECTIVE) 31 (2023).
Case 2:23-cv-04150 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 11 of 41 Page ID #:11
12
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
offsets is that a company will invest money into a project with ostensibly positive
environmental impact and in return they will receive “carbon offset credits” that
estimate the project’s carbon-reducing impact. Though the “methodologies
underpinning offsets vary widely and are not always transparent, accurate, or
consistent,”
22
in theory, a company will only claim to be carbon neutral when
they have accrued enough carbon credits in a year to fully “offset” the carbon
emissions produced by their annual business operations. In the words of Delta’s
Managing Director of Sustainability, Amelia DeLuca, being carbon neutral
means that “for everything we emit, we take an action, though in our space
mostly avoiding deforestation, to neutralize those emissions.”
23
36. Carbon neutral representations are similarly effective on consumers,
especially for goods and services that consumers identify as otherwise
environmentally harmful. A 2015 study found that “the presence of a carbon-
neutral label in an advertisement, regardless of the type of product, leads to more
favorable perceptions of company environmental concern” while the presence of
the carbon neutral label leads to “more pronounced increase[s]’ in consumer
perceptions of company environmental concern” when the product in question is
“environmentally harmful” than when it is “environmentally neutral.”
24
37. This is further corroborated by a March 2022 report documenting “
a
simulated market study” which “revealed that 87% of Americans value carbon-
neutral labeled products over similar ‘unlabeled’ products” and “that this value is
driven by better brand perceptions and feeling better when buying the product.”
This value was not merely reputational; “[p]eople placed a considerable
22
Id.
23
Brands Unbridled, Delta Air Lines: Taking Climate Commitments to New Heights,
STORYHORSE, (Nov. 1, 2021), https://storyhorsebranding.com/perspective/delta-airlines-
taking-climate-commitments-to-new-heights/
24
Amy Stokes & Anna M. Turri, Consumer Perceptions of Carbon Labeling in Print
Advertising: Hype or Effective Communication Strategy?, JOURNAL OF MARKETING
COMMUNICATIONS, 2015, at 300, 300-315.
Case 2:23-cv-04150 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 12 of 41 Page ID #:12
13
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
monetary value on carbon-neutral products.” In particular, an experiment found
“that consumers consistently reported they were willing to pay more for [carbon-
neutral] labeled products compared to equivalent products in a shopping
scenario. The [carbon-neutral] label held substantial appeal across
demographics, skewing slightly towards women. Carbon neutral products were
similarly appealing across income, post-high school education levels, race, and
age.”
25
38. At the same time, consumers have reason to be concerned about
aviation emissions. “Over the past two decades, CO2 emissions from aviation
have increased rapidly.” “Although the energy intensity of commercial
passenger aviation has declined, due to improvements in the operational and
technical efficiency measures adopted by airlines, this has been more than offset
by the CO2 emissions resulting from the rapid growth in passenger numbers.”
26
D. Delta Claims Carbon Neutrality, Predicated on Carbon
Offsets, in Order to Encourage Consumers to Fly Delta
39. In February 2020, Delta CEO Ed Bastian announced that Delta was
going “fully carbon neutral” as of March 1, 2020.
27
In order to achieve this goal,
Bastian stated Delta was committing to using carbon removal and transitioning to
sustainable fuels, committing “a billion dollars over this decade, or close to $100
million dollars a year.”
28
On the question of carbon offsets, Bastian said “carbon
offsets are “not the solution, there are not enough to go around…carbon offsets
have a lot of efficacy issues, and quite honestly in some places they do more
25
Graham Gephart, Understanding How Consumers Value Climate Neutral Certification,
CLIMATE NEUTRAL (Mar. 30, 2022), https://www.climateneutral.org/blog/understanding-how-
consumers-value-climate-neutral-certification
26
SEAN HEALY, SCOPING VOLUNTARY CORPORATE CLIMATE ACTION IN THE EUROPEAN
AVIATION SECTOR 8 (ÖKO-INSTITUT ET AL. EDS., 2022).
27
Jessica Bursztynsky, Delta Airlines CEO Announces the Carrier will go ‘Fully Carbon
Neutral’ Next Month, CNBC (Feb. 14, 2020, 7:27 AM),
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/14/delta-air-lines-ceo-carrier-will-go-fully-carbon-neutral-
next-month.html
28
Id.
Case 2:23-cv-04150 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 13 of 41 Page ID #:13
14
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
harm than they do good, or pay people to not do harm, that is not really helping
our planet.”
29
40. Since March 2020, Defendant has marketed itself across various
platforms as “the world’s first carbon neutral airline.”
41. A September 2021 video advertisement states that Delta is
“committed to becoming the world’s first carbon neutral airline on a global
basis.”
30
As reported by Adweek, Delta’s Managing Director of Sustainability,
Amelia DeLuca, stated that Delta’s intention for the advertisement was to
communicate that “[w]hen you book with Delta, you can feel confident that we
will offset the carbon emitted from your flight with us.”
31
The airline broadcast
the campaign widely, “with placements airing on NBCUniversal properties and
digitally in The New York Times, Lonely Planet and HuffPost Black Voices”
along with audio and video content “appearing on Pandora, Spotify, Stitcher and
YouTube,” complemented with “targeted digital ads” “on social platforms
including Facebook, Instagram, Reddit and Twitter.”
32
Molly Battin, Delta’s
Senior Vice President of Marketing, herself acknowledged that the purpose of the
campaign was to raise awareness of Delta’s carbon neutral status after
“‘proprietary research show[ed] that [Delta] customers [weren’t] aware’ of
Delta’s carbon neutral status,” and that the media plan aimed to establish Delta
“as an industry leader for sustainable change.”
33
42. A September 28, 2021 LinkedIn Post by DeLuca (simultaneously
posted to Delta’s corporate website, and remaining there as of the date of filing)
went on to state that Defendant “became the first carbon neutral airline on a
29
Id.
30
Kathryn Lundstrom, Delta’s New Ad Campaign Takes Aim at Travel-Related Climate Guilt,
ADWEEK (Sep. 13, 2021), https://www.adweek.com/brand-marketing/delta-travel-related-
climate-guilt-carbon-neutral/
31
Id.
32
Id.
33
Id.
Case 2:23-cv-04150 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 14 of 41 Page ID #:14
15
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
global basis” in 2020, a commitment “from March 2020 onward, balancing our
emissions with investments to remove carbon across our global operations.”
34
DeLuca repeated these representations in a November 1, 2021 episode of the
podcast Brands Unbridled, again advertising Delta as “the first carbon neutral
airline in the world” such that “since March 1st, 2020 onward, until today and
going forward, we are a carbon neutral airline.”
35
DeLuca went on, stating that
“for everything we emit, we take an action, though in our space mostly avoiding
deforestation, to neutralize those emissions.” And a November 4, 2021 LinkedIn
post stated that “[i]n March 2020, Delta became the first carbon neutral airline
globally.”
36
43. During this time, Delta also printed and put into circulation an in-
flight napkin, a photo of which is below, representing that Delta was “Carbon
Neutral Since March 2020.”
34
Amelia DeLuca, An Update on Our Path to Net Zero, DELTA NEWS HUB (Sep. 28, 2021,
12:00 PM), https://news.delta.com/update-our-path-net-zero
35
Brands Unbridaled, Delta Air Lines: Taking Climate Commitments to New Heights,
STORYHORSE, (Nov. 1, 2021), https://storyhorsebranding.com/perspective/delta-airlines-
taking-climate-commitments-to-new-heights/
36
Delta Air Lines Inc., An Update on Our Path to Net Zero, DELTA NEWS HUB (Nov. 4, 2021,
12:45 PM), https://news.delta.com/delta-joins-first-movers-coalition-drive-breakthrough-
technologies-and-sustainable-fuels
Case 2:23-cv-04150 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 15 of 41 Page ID #:15
16
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
44. Defendant also made specific representations as to the nature,
impact, and structure of its carbon offset portfolio. An April 22, 2021 “Earth
Day” post on Delta’s website claimed that as part of Delta’s “
commitment to
carbon neutrality,” Delta was intending to purchase “more than $30 million for
portfolio [sic] of verified offsets to mitigate 13 million metric tons of Delta’s
2020 emissions.”
37
Those investments ended up including “protecting half a
million acres in an Indonesian peat swamp forest and a Cambodian wildlife
sanctuary.”
38
45. These representations were clearly made with the intent to
encourage air travel on Delta. Delta’s September 2021 video advertisement that
mentions its carbon neutrality is premised around encouraging consumers to see
the world and save the world, and in September 2022, Delta’s newly appointed
Sustainability Officer reiterated that the purpose of Delta’s carbon neutral
representations was to convince consumers that they do not “have to choose
between seeing the world and saving the world.”
39
///
///
37
Delta Air Lines Inc., Delta Spotlights Ambitious Carbon Neutrality Plan on Path to Zero-
impact Aviation this Earth Month, DELTA NEWS HUB (Apr. 22, 2021, 11:30 AM),
https://news.delta.com/delta-spotlights-ambitious-carbon-neutrality-plan-path-zero-impact-
aviation-earth-month
38
Josh Lederman, Corporations are Turning to Forest Credits in the Race to go ‘Carbon
Neutral.’ Advocates Worry About ‘Greenwashing.’, NBC NEWS (Jan. 18, 2023, 12:58 PM),
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/corporations-are-turning-forest-credits-race-go-carbon-
neutral-advocat-rcna7259
39
Philba Wahba, Delta’s Sustainability Chief Says People Don’t Have to Choose Between
Flying and Protecting the Environment, FORTUNE (Sep. 23, 2022, 5:47 AM),
https://fortune.com/2022/09/23/delta-sustainability-chief-climate-change-esg-dont-choose-
between-flying-protecting-
environment/?_ptid=%7Bkpdx%7DAAAAvBfj3ejzgQoKY2ZRajJmTTN6ahIQbGhneDlqanZ
pbzR5cmh1ZxoMRVg1M0lEU01IUVNQIiUxODA4N2RnMGMwLTAwMDAzMjAydDhlY
TJpNWZwcWMyNGNqaDBvKhhzaG93T2ZmZXJUSVdTTlZWNk9RUEIxNDIwAToMT1R
YVjlWNkRMVVI5Qg1PVFYySzVEMEpGTTRRUhJ2LYIA8BZ6M2U3bDRpcXNaCzQ3Lj
E1NS42My40YgNkd2NordrwogZwBHgM
Case 2:23-cv-04150 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 16 of 41 Page ID #:16
17
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
E. Defendant’s Claims of Carbon Neutrality are False and
Misleading
46. Delta’s representations of carbon neutrality are provably false and
misleading. Rather than achieving carbon neutrality through sustainable fuels
and carbon removals, as initially promised, Delta has instead premised their
carbon neutrality on the purchase of carbon offsets from the voluntary carbon
market. Nearly all offsets issued by the voluntary carbon offset market
overpromise and underdeliver on their total carbon impact due to endemic
methodological errors and fraudulent accounting on behalf of offset vendors,
resulting “in offset credits of low environmental integrity and credibility that
mislead consumers when they are relied upon in explicit environmental
claims.”
40
“The methodologies underpinning offsets vary widely and are not
always transparent, accurate, or consistent” leading to “significant risks of
overestimations and double counting of avoided or reduced emissions.”
41
The
primary issues with the carbon offset market are the offsets’ lack of verifiability,
additionality, immediacy, and durability.
42
47. Any one of these issues can mean that “a proposed offset won’t
actually reduce emissions much, if at all.” And it is only “when companies have
achieved all the reductions they possibly can, and balanced the rest with carbon
removals, would they achieve ‘carbon-neutrality.’”
43
This is because “if it would
be preferable to simply avoid (not offset) the emissions in a scenario where the
40
EUROPEAN COMM’N, DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL ON
SUBSTANTIATION AND COMMUNICATION OF EXPLICIT ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIMS (GREEN
CLAIMS DIRECTIVE) 31 (2023).
41
Id.
42
Betsy Vereckey, How to Choose Carbon Offsets that Actually Cut Emissions, MIT SLOAN
SCH. (Nov. 2, 2022), https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/how-to-choose-carbon-
offsets-actually-cut-emissions
43
Jess Shankleman & Akshat Rathi, Net Zero Is Hard Work, So Companies Are Going
'Carbon Neutral', BLOOMBERG (Jul. 19, 2021, 3:50 AM),
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-19/offsets-can-play-a-role-to-make-
companies-carbon-responsible#xj4y7vzkg
Case 2:23-cv-04150 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 17 of 41 Page ID #:17
18
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
world followed an efficient and equitable approach to eliminating emissions, the
act of offsetting cannot make up for this forgone opportunity. Instead, the act of
offsetting merely sets the world on a slightly less worse path, but one that still
deviates from what is optimal.”
44
This is particularly true when “carbon credits
are sold by companies to ‘compensate’ for an activity where optimal mitigation
pathways require consumer behavioral change,” such as “aviation, where
identified pathways refer to the need for demand management, or limits on
flying.”
45
And the risks of miscalculation are greater in the aviation sector, as
“[a]viation emissions are especially impactful, since their total net effect is
enhanced through a variety of non-CO2 radiative forcing processes that occur at
high altitudes.”
46
48. The offset industry is replete with well-documented problems,
explained further below. Regardless of those granular details, it is simply
indisputable that issues with the offset market have been well-documented and
publicized. “In the EU, a 2021 study revealed that 85 percent of offsets failed to
reduce emissions. In response, EU member states decided offsets would not
count toward European climate goals after 2021.”
47
“In 2019, a study similarly
found that 82 per cent of California’s offset credits do not provide climate
benefits.”
48
Yet despite all of these concerns, Delta has been specifically
identified as a company that relies on dubious offsets that fall victim to all of
these issues, rendering its claims of carbon neutrality false and misleading and
particularly injurious in light of Delta’s massive CO2 footprint as a major
44
DERIK BROEKHOFF, EXPERT REPORT 5 (STOCKHOLM ENV’T INST. ET AL. EDS., 2022).
45
Id. at 6.
46
Id.
47
Lois Parshley, California’s Carbon Offsetting May Actually be Increasing Emissions, NEW
SCIENTIST (Dec. 22, 2022), https://www.newscientist.com/article/2352926-californias-carbon-
offsetting-may-actually-be-increasing-emissions/
48
Id.
Case 2:23-cv-04150 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 18 of 41 Page ID #:18
19
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
worldwide airline.
49
i. Delta’s Purportedly “Verified” Offsets Are Predicated on
Misleading and Unverifiable Accounting of Carbon Impact
49. The first reason it is false and misleading for Delta to represent it is
carbon neutral on the basis of its offsets portfolio is that Delta’s offsets are
predicated on misleading and unverifiable accounting of the offset’s carbon
impact, due to the voluntary carbon market’s “tendency to inflate” carbon
impacts, resulting “in phantom carbon credits.”
50
Accurate accounting is
essential for carbon neutrality claims to be true, as “[if a company’s] calculations
are not perfect, you’re doing harm,” due to the fact that the offsets need to
meaningfully cancel out “[t]he consequences of adding carbon dioxide to the
atmosphere,” which “extend centuries, if not millennia, into the future.”
51
50. Verification is important for all kinds of offsets. Whether they are
in the form of avoided deforestation, avoided emissions, or green technology
investments, a company “must be able to verify that emissions actually fall. If
you’re going to plant trees, you have to verify that they were actually planted and
that they will survive for decades to come. If you fund efficient, low-emission
cook stoves for the rural poor in the developing world, you have to verify that
they are actually delivered, kept in working condition, and used.”
52
51. Yet the voluntary carbon market is replete with dubious projections
49
Akshat Rathi et al., Junk Carbon Offsets Are What Make These Big Companies ‘Carbon
Neutral’, BLOOMBERG (Nov. 21, 2022), https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-carbon-
offsets-renewable-energy/#xj4y7vzkg
50
Patrick Greenfield, Carbon Offsets Used by Major Airlines Based on Flawed System, Warn
Experts, THE GUARDIAN (May 4, 2021),
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/04/carbon-offsets-used-by-major-
airlines-based-on-flawed-system-warn-experts
51
Lois Parshley, California’s Carbon Offsetting May Actually be Increasing Emissions, NEW
SCIENTIST (Dec. 22, 2022), https://www.newscientist.com/article/2352926-californias-carbon-
offsetting-may-actually-be-increasing-emissions/
52
Betsy Vereckey, How to Choose Carbon Offsets that Actually Cut Emissions, MIT SLOAN
SCH. (Nov. 2, 2022), https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/how-to-choose-carbon-
offsets-actually-cut-emissions
Case 2:23-cv-04150 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 19 of 41 Page ID #:19
20
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
misleadingly packaged as guarantees. “Research into Verra, the world’s leading
carbon standard for the rapidly growing $2bn (£1.6bn) voluntary offsets market,
has found that, based on analysis of a significant percentage of the projects, more
than 90% of their rainforest offset credits – among the most commonly used by
companies – are likely to be ‘phantom credits’ and do not represent genuine
carbon reductions.”
53
52. “Phantom credits” result from inaccurate projections. The three
major voluntary carbon credit vendors from whom Defendant purchases offsets
have repeatedly engaged in fraudulent projections that grossly overstate their
guarantee of carbon reduction. One major problem is severe errors in how
vendors project future offsetting. Researchers have found that in the context of
avoided deforestation offsets, “in all projects that established crediting baselines
using historical trends,” “the crediting baselines significantly overstate
deforestation in comparison to the counterfactual estimates based on synthetic
controls.”
54
In other words, offset vendors’ routine erroneous reliance on
historical data leads to the consistent overestimation of the total risks to existing
forests, leading to significant overinflation of the estimated carbon reduction
from the corresponding offsets. Investigations have further revealed that all three
major voluntary carbon markets have engaged in fraudulently double and triple
counting of projects, crediting several companies with the entire carbon offset
from the same plot of land.
5556
53
Patrick Greenfield, Revealed: More Than 90% of Rainforest Carbon Offsets by Biggest
Provider are Worthless, Analysis Shows, THE GUARDIAN (Jan. 18, 2023),
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/18/revealed-forest-carbon-offsets-
biggest-provider-worthless-verra-aoe
54
THALES A. P. WEST ET AL., OVERSTATED CARBON EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM VOLUNTARY
REDD+ PROJECTS IN THE BRAZILIAN AMAZON 3 (ERIC F. LAMBIN ED., NAT’L ACAD. OF SCI.,
2020).
55
EUROPEAN COMM’N, DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL ON
SUBSTANTIATION AND COMMUNICATION OF EXPLICIT ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIMS (GREEN
CLAIMS DIRECTIVE) (2023).
56
DERIK BROEKHOFF, EXPERT REPORT (STOCKHOLM ENV’T INST. ET AL. EDS., 2022).
Case 2:23-cv-04150 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 20 of 41 Page ID #:20
21
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
53. These issues are specific to Delta’s offset portfolio. Delta’s offset
portfolio is primarily composed of green technology investment offsets,
57
with an
additional substantial investment in prevented deforestation.
58
For instance, in
2021, Delta’s offsets portfolio was 50% renewable energy offsets, 44%
agricultural forestry and other land use offsets, and 6% renewable offsets.
59
Yet
these are precisely the kinds of offsets that are most likely to be the product of
inaccurate baselining and double counting.
54. As noted above, a review of the world’s largest carbon offset
project, the green technology offsets project CDM, (whose green technology
investment offsets are present in Delta’s offset portfolio) revealed that there were
serious issues with the project’s baseline assumptions, undermining the likely
value of more than half of the offsets sold by the project.
60
The issue with CDM
projects is that the offsets were routinely “ awarded to projects that would have
been developed without the subsidy” generated by the sales of the offsets, such
that the offsets “did not represent emissions savings.”
61
In fact, CDM’s offset
allocation “compare[d] unfavorably with a lottery, indicating that there is
substantial room for improvement in the design and implementation of the
project selection mechanism.”
62
This is no mere inefficiency; “having a process
that accurately screens out projects that do not require subsidies is essential to
57
Akshat Rathi et al., Junk Carbon Offsets Are What Make These Big Companies ‘Carbon
Neutral’, BLOOMBERG (Nov. 21, 2022), https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-carbon-
offsets-renewable-energy/#xj4y7vzkg
58
Josh Lederman, Corporations are Turning to Forest Credits in the Race to go ‘Carbon
Neutral.’ Advocates Worry About ‘Greenwashing.’, NBC NEWS (Jan. 18, 2023, 12:58 PM),
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/corporations-are-turning-forest-credits-race-go-carbon-
neutral-advocat-rcna7259
59
US Airline Buys 12 Million mt of Carbon Offsets for $137 Million, QUANTUM COMMODITY
INTEL. (May 9, 2022), https://www.qcintel.com/carbon/article/us-airline-buys-12-million-mt-
of-carbon-offsets-for-137-million-5848.html
60
RAPHAEL CALEL ET AL., DO CARBON OFFSETS OFFSET CARBON? 21 (GRANTHAM RSCH.
INST. ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE ENV’T ET AL. EDS., 2021).
61
Id.
62
Id.
Case 2:23-cv-04150 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 21 of 41 Page ID #:21
22
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
safeguarding the integrity of offset programs.”
63
Inaccurate projections lead to
the misallocation of scarce climate change mitigation resources and the rubber
stamping of net increase in global emissions. Researchers found that rather than
mitigate climate change, CDM’s misallocation of carbon offset funds “may have
increased global carbon dioxide emissions by 6.1 billion tonnes, equivalent to
running 20 one-gigawatt coal power plants for their entire 50-year lifespan.”
64
55. The same is true for deforestation projects. Delta’s 2021
agricultural, forestry and other land use offsets were all verified by the carbon
offset vendor Verra. Yet as noted above, recent reporting revealed that 90% of
rainforest offsets provided by Verra during this period were predicated on poor
baseline assumptions, and in fact had zero climate impact.
65
ii. Delta’s Offsets are Non-Additional and Therefore Have Little
to no Climate Impact
56. The second reason it is false and misleading for Delta to represent
itself as carbon neutral on the basis of its offset portfolio is that Defendant has
almost exclusively relied on carbon offsets that are “non-additional.” A project
is “non-additional” when it credits carbon offsets for reductions that would have
occurred regardless of the involvement of the voluntary carbon market. Carbon
reductions “are additional if they would not have occurred in the absence of a
market for offset credits. If the reductions would have happened anyway – i.e.,
without any prospect for project owners to sell carbon offset credits – then they
are not additional.
57. Additionality is essential for the quality of carbon offset credits – if
their associated GHG reductions are not additional, then purchasing offset credits
63
Id.
64
Id.
65
Patrick Greenfield, Revealed: More Than 90% of Rainforest Carbon Offsets by Biggest
Provider are Worthless, Analysis Shows, THE GUARDIAN (Jan. 18, 2023),
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/18/revealed-forest-carbon-offsets-
biggest-provider-worthless-verra-aoe
Case 2:23-cv-04150 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 22 of 41 Page ID #:22
23
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
in lieu of reducing your own emissions will make climate change worse.”
66
Accordingly, any project that is non-additional is a carbon offset in name only,
such that any claim of carbon neutrality that is even fractionally predicated on
non-additional carbon projects is definitively false. Yet according to one study,
“at least 52% of approved carbon offsets were allocated to projects that would
very likely have been built anyway.” “In addition to wasting scarce resources,”
the sale of non-additional offsets “to regulated polluters” has likely “substantially
increased global carbon dioxide emissions.”
67
58. In practice, only “4% of offsets actually remove CO2 from the
atmosphere.”
68
This is particularly concerning in light of the fact that even
though carbon offsetting is not inherently mutually exclusive to initiatives that
aim to directly reduce a company’s emissions, e.g. reducing energy consumption
or transitioning to low-or-no-carbon fuel sources, carbon offsetting often replaces
direct emissions reductions because it is typically more cost effective for
companies to engage in carbon offsetting than it would be for them to
meaningfully decrease the carbon footprint and overall environmental impact of
their products/services. In practice, the low price of carbon offsets often deters
companies from pursuing “emissions reductions in their own operations and
value chains,” despite adequate contributions to global climate change mitigation
targets necessarily requiring the “effective reductions of emissions across”
“operations and value chains” instead of reliance on offsets.
69
This makes non-
66
What Makes a High-Quality Carbon Offset?: Additionality, CARBON OFFSET GUIDE,
https://www.offsetguide.org/high-quality-offsets/additionality/ (May 19, 2023, 2:17 PM).
67
RAPHAEL CALEL ET AL., DO CARBON OFFSETS OFFSET CARBON? 1 (GRANTHAM RSCH. INST.
ON
CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE ENV’T ET AL. EDS., 2021).
68
Akshat Rathi & Ben Elgin, What Are Carbon Offsets and How Many Really Work?,
BLOOMBERG (Jun. 14, 2022),
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-14/what-are-carbon-offsets-and-how-
many-really-work-quicktake
69
EUROPEAN COMM’N, DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL ON
SUBSTANTIATION AND COMMUNICATION OF EXPLICIT ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIMS (GREEN
CLAIMS DIRECTIVE) 31 (2023).
Case 2:23-cv-04150 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 23 of 41 Page ID #:23
24
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
additional offsets particularly pernicious for global climate goals; not only do
they profoundly underperform other green efforts, but they provide companies a
discounted means of claiming they are making a difference when they are in fact
doing very little.
59. Yet Delta has been identified as having almost exclusively relied on
non-additional offsets, with an offset portfolio consisting of “half renewables,
mostly wind and solar projects in India.”
70
“Selling offsets for small sums as a
way to support the economics of renewables doesn’t provide any real benefit if
it’s already cheaper than building new coal or gas power plants.” “The issue is
timing: many renewable offsets came into being just as solar and wind power
established herself as the cheapest source of energy in most countries.”
71
“An
expert review of Delta’s largest single source of renewable offsets, the Los
Cocos II wind farm in the Dominican Republic, determined that it almost
certainly didn’t need additional support.”
72
And as revealed by an analysis of the
very wind projects in India from which Delta has heavily purchased offsets, “at
least 52% of approved carbon offsets were allocated to projects that would very
likely have been built anyway.”
73
60. Similar additionality concerns are present with avoided
deforestation projects. A 2021 study “found that California’s offsets programs
systematically over-credits the carbon-absorbing potential of its offset properties
by nearly a third.” Further satellite analysis confirmed that “no additional carbon
is actually being sequestered in these forests than would have been without the
70
Akshat Rathi et al., Junk Carbon Offsets Are What Make These Big Companies ‘Carbon
Neutral’, BLOOMBERG (Nov. 21, 2022), https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-carbon-
offsets-renewable-energy/#xj4y7vzkg
71
Id.
72
Id.
73
RAPHAEL CALEL ET AL., DO CARBON OFFSETS OFFSET CARBON? 30 (GRANTHAM RSCH. INST.
ON
CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE ENV’T ET AL. EDS., 2021).
Case 2:23-cv-04150 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 24 of 41 Page ID #:24
25
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
program.”
74
iii. Delta’s Offsets do not Provide Immediate Offsetting,
Misleadingly Claiming Carbon Offsets From Future Decades
of Projected Offsets Against Current Emissions
61. Carbon offsets also need to be immediate. In the same way there’s a
time value to money, there is a time value to carbon: “Your flight today dumps
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere right now, worsening climate change from
this day forth. Saplings planted today won’t grow large enough to offset today’s
emissions for decades, nor will investments in speculative technologies like
nuclear fusion or direct air capture, even if they eventually become viable.”
75
The same is true for green technology investments; projections of decades of
fossil fuel replacement from a wind farm are a woefully imprecise means of
calculating the actual impact of technologies that may well become obsolete in
the intervening years. Consumers also expect that carbon neutral claims are
based on immediate carbon reductions. The very premise of claiming carbon
neutrality in a calendar year is that the year’s omissions were offset that year.
62. Nevertheless, Defendant’s offsets are by definition not-immediate,
despite Delta having repeatedly represented that the company is already “carbon
neutral.”
63. Defendant claims its purchase of offsets meant that its corporate
operations were “carbon-neutral” over a calendar year when the offsets in
question in fact project future carbon reduction. In reality, the company invested
in various green projects, calculated future years of future carbon reductions or
non-release from those projects, and then credited all of the years of future
reductions from the single year’s offset investments against a single
74
Lois Parshley, California’s Carbon Offsetting May Actually be Increasing Emissions, NEW
SCIENTIST (Dec. 22, 2022), https://www.newscientist.com/article/2352926-californias-carbon-
offsetting-may-actually-be-increasing-emissions/
75
Betsy Vereckey, How to Choose Carbon Offsets that Actually Cut Emissions, MIT SLOAN
SCH. (Nov. 2, 2022), https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/how-to-choose-carbon-
offsets-actually-cut-emissions
Case 2:23-cv-04150 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 25 of 41 Page ID #:25
26
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
contemporary year of emissions. Therefore, Defendant’s representations that
they were “carbon-neutral” in a calendar year due to their purchase of offsets
from the voluntary carbon market are in fact false—Defendant had simply
invested in projects that, assuming nothing goes wrong, will altogether take all of
those future years to offset Defendant’s most recent year of carbon emissions.
“Regardless of quality, all [carbon offset] projects have long timelines and may
take years to scale, which make determining their future effects (and dollar
value) an act of educated guesswork.”
76
That means that “[n]o matter how
rigorously vetted a program might be,” offsets programs are “never literally
negating the emissions,” “even when companies that support [carbon offsetting]
projects claim to make your purchase carbon neutral today.”
77
iv. Delta’s Offsets are Impermanent and Therefore Offer no
Guarantee of Future Performance, Despite Delta’s Carbon
Neutral Claims Relying on Said Future Performance
64. Offsets also need to permanently sequester carbon in order to
meaningfully combat climate change. “Carbon dioxide emissions stay in the
atmosphere for a century or more, so you must offset an equivalent amount of
emissions for at least that long. Trees planted today are more likely to succumb
to wildfire, disease, pests, or extreme weather as the world warms, and do not
provide durable carbon storage.”
78
“To counterbalance fossil fuel emissions,
therefore, carbon credits must be associated with mitigation that is similarly
permanent. If mitigation is ‘reversed’ (i.e., carbon stored as a result of a
mitigation activity is subsequently emitted, so that no net reduction or removal
occurs), then it no longer contributes to staying within a global carbon budget,
76
Katie Okamoto, Don’t Be Fooled by ‘Carbon Neutral’ Shipping, WIRECUTTER (Nov. 21,
2022), https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/what-is-carbon-neutral-shipping/
77
Id.
78
Betsy Vereckey, How to Choose Carbon Offsets that Actually Cut Emissions, MIT SLOAN
SCH. (Nov. 2, 2022), https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/how-to-choose-carbon-
offsets-actually-cut-emissions
Case 2:23-cv-04150 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 26 of 41 Page ID #:26
27
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and no longer serves a counterbalancing function. This is primarily a concern
with mitigation activities that result in enhanced carbon storage in biospheric
reservoirs (including trees, shrubs, soils, and other biological stores of
carbon).”
79
65. This comes from the inherent problem with crediting companies
with the environmental impacts of decades-long projections—“[i]t’s impossible
to prove a counterfactual.”
80
For instance, in the context of prevented
deforestation, “[r]ather than just valuing what forests are actually there, which
are actively providing a carbon sink or store right now, [carbon offset vendors]
have to surmise which forests would still be here versus which ones are the
bonus forests that were spared from the theoretical ax.”
81
66. “Already, there are examples of forests associated with carbon
crediting projects being destroyed by catastrophic fires, including projects funded
by BP and Microsoft affected by the increasingly prevalent wildfires in the
American West (Hodgson 2021). Such impacts are leading credit buyers to re-
evaluate the risks of such projects. While some carbon offset programs, such as
the Gold Standard, maintain insurance mechanisms to address carbon losses
(essentially, ‘buffer reserves’ of credits that are issued but not circulated), there
are questions about whether they are sufficiently robust and it is doubtful that
such mechanisms can be effective over indefinite time periods.” For Gold
Standard offsets, “the obligation to compensate for ‘reversals’ (i.e., carbon
losses) may extend for as little as 20 years – far short of what is needed to fully
counterbalance carbon emissions.”
82
Ultimately, “[t]he fragility of biospheric
79
DERIK BROEKHOFF, EXPERT REPORT 7-8 (STOCKHOLM ENV’T INST. ET AL. EDS., 2022).
80
Patrick Greenfield, Carbon Offsets Used by Major Airlines Based on Flawed System, Warn
Experts, THE GUARDIAN (May 4, 2021),
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/04/carbon-offsets-used-by-major-
airlines-based-on-flawed-system-warn-experts
81
Id.2
82
DERIK BROEKHOFF, EXPERT REPORT 9 (STOCKHOLM ENV’T INST. ET AL. EDS., 2022).
Case 2:23-cv-04150 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 27 of 41 Page ID #:27
28
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
carbon reservoirs has led some scientists to object to any use of NCS to offset
fossil carbon emissions.”
67. According to a report by the European Union, carbon offsets sold by
the three major carbon offset vendors have in fact routinely credited companies
with decades of projected increase in carbon offsetting from projects that
subsequently severely underperformed or in some cases were destroyed
altogether. Offset vendors claim they insure against catastrophic future events by
siloing offsets as insurance, but one study found that “one single disease, on a
single tree species called tanoak, would be enough to completely wipe out the
credits set aside for all disease-and insect-related mortality.”
83
F. Delta Knew or Should Have Known These Statements Were
False
68. Accordingly, any claim that Defendant is a carbon neutral company
is false and misleading, and Defendant either knew or should have known as
such--Defendant’s operations produce significant amounts of carbon into the
atmosphere, and its purchase of fraudulently accounted and dubiously designed
carbon offsets in no way make their operation produce no additional carbon year
over year. Despite the carbon offset market’s claims of verification, its ultimate
reliance on “ambitious and dynamic crediting baselines that depart from business
as usual” has produced inaccurate and misleading accounting. At the same time,
the offsets herself “lack additionality”, are non-immediate, and fundamentally
fail to guarantee a permanent impact, all of which render the claim that those
offsets make Delta “carbon neutral” provably false and misleading.
84
69. It is simply inaccurate to say that offset purchasers are unaware of
83
Lois Parshley, California’s Carbon Offsetting May Actually be Increasing Emissions, NEW
SCIENTIST (Dec. 22, 2022), https://www.newscientist.com/article/2352926-californias-carbon-
offsetting-may-actually-be-increasing-emissions/
84
EUROPEAN COMM’N, DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL ON
SUBSTANTIATION AND COMMUNICATION OF EXPLICIT ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIMS (GREEN
CLAIMS DIRECTIVE) 31 (2023).
Case 2:23-cv-04150 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 28 of 41 Page ID #:28
29
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
problems with the voluntary carbon offset market. Much the opposite is true—
there are voluminous pages of industry-wide writing acknowledging the legal
risks of continuing to engage in these misrepresentations. “41% of corporate
sustainability officers don’t use carbon offsets because they don’t trust them,”
and another “43% are seeking to have them rated or validated” to prevent
misleading the public.
85
At the same time, market leaders in transportation
including Lyft and JetBlue have halted their offset programs and retracted carbon
neutral claims out of concerns that the offset market is faulty and therefore
carbon neutral claims are actionably false.
86
And Credit Suisse, “an early
purchaser of renewable offsets, now says it’s among the companies shifting
towards buying more rigorous removals.”
87
Even Walmart, the world’s largest
company by revenue, has made “a zero emissions commitment that does not rely
on carbon offsets.”
88
70. Delta’s own current CEO Ed Bastian himself acknowledged the
severe problems with offsets when Delta first announced its intention to go “fully
carbon neutral” as of March 1, 2020.
89
On the question of carbon offsets,
Bastian said “carbon offsets are “not the solution, there are not enough to go
around…carbon offsets have a lot of efficacy issues, and quite honestly in some
places they do more harm than they do good, or pay people to not do harm, that
85
AIDASH INC., CARBON OFFSETTING IN 2023: A CHIEF SUSTAINABILITY OFFICER’S GUIDE TO
THE
MARKET 4 (2023).
86
Justine Calma, JetBlue No Longer Plans to Offset Emissions from Domestic Flights, THE
VERGE (Dec. 9, 2022), https://www.theverge.com/2022/12/9/23501665/jetblue-carbon-offsets-
sustainable-aviation-fuel
87
Akshat Rathi et al., Junk Carbon Offsets Are What Make These Big Companies ‘Carbon
Neutral’, BLOOMBERG (Nov. 21, 2022), https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-carbon-
offsets-renewable-energy/#xj4y7vzkg
88
Betsy Vereckey, How to Choose Carbon Offsets that Actually Cut Emissions, MIT SLOAN
SCH. (Nov. 2, 2022), https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/how-to-choose-carbon-
offsets-actually-cut-emissions
89
Jessica Bursztynsky, Delta Airlines CEO Announces the Carrier will go ‘Fully Carbon
Neutral’ Next Month, CNBC (Feb. 14, 2020, 7:27 AM),
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/14/delta-air-lines-ceo-carrier-will-go-fully-carbon-neutral-
next-month.html
Case 2:23-cv-04150 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 29 of 41 Page ID #:29
30
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
is not really helping our planet.”
90
CLASS ALLEGATIONS
71. In addition to their individual claims, Plaintiff bring this action
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
72. Plaintiff bring this class action lawsuit on behalf of a proposed class
of similarly situated persons, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, defined as follows:
73. “The Class”: All natural persons who, between March 6, 2020 and
the present, purchased a Delta Airlines flight while located in California.
74. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a
class
action against Defendant because there is a well-defined community of interest in
the litigation and the proposed class is easily ascertainable.
75. Numerosity: Plaintiff does not know the exact size of the Class, but
estimates that the Class is composed of more than 5,000 persons. The persons in
the Class are so numerous that the joinder of all such persons is impracticable
and the disposition of their claims in a class action rather than in individual
actions will benefit the parties and the courts.
76. Common Questions Predominate: This action involves common
questions of law and fact to the Class because each class member’s claim derives
from the deceptive, unlawful and/or unfair statements and omissions that led
consumers to believe that Delta Airlines was a carbon neutral airline.
77. The common questions of law and fact predominate over individual
questions, as proof of a common or single set of facts will establish the right of
each member of the Class to recover. The questions of law and fact common to
the Class are:
• whether Defendant operated a carbon neutral airline;
90
Id.
Case 2:23-cv-04150 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 30 of 41 Page ID #:30
31
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
• whether Defendant purchased carbon offsets that fully offset its annual
year of emissions;
• whether Defendant unfairly, unlawfully and/or deceptively
misrepresented that it is a carbon neutral airline; that is has fully offset its
emissions on an annual basis since March 2020;
• whether the use of the term “carbon neutral” in Defendant’s marketing
violated Federal and/or California state law;
• whether the advertising of Delta Airlines flights as being carbon neutral
caused them to command a premium in the market as compared with
similar services that do not make such a claim;
• whether Defendant’s advertising and marketing regarding carbon
neutrality was likely to deceive the class members and/or was unfair;
• whether a carbon neutrality claim on flight advertising is material to a
reasonable consumer;
• whether Defendant engaged in the alleged conduct knowingly,
recklessly, or negligently;
78. Typicality: Plaintiff’ claims are typical of the claims of other
members of the Class because, among other things, all such claims arise out of
the same unlawful course of conduct in which Defendant engaged. Plaintiff and
those similarly situated purchased Defendant’s flights based on Defendant’s
misrepresentations and omissions that they are a carbon neutral airline that has
fully offset all of its emissions since March 2020. Thus, they and the class
members sustained the same injuries and damages arising out of Defendant’s
conduct in violation of the law. The injuries and damages of each class member
were caused directly by Defendant’s wrongful conduct in violation of law as
alleged.
79. Adequacy of Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately
protect the interests of all class members because it is in their best interests to
Case 2:23-cv-04150 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 31 of 41 Page ID #:31
32
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
prosecute the claims alleged herein to obtain full compensation due to them for
the unfair and illegal conduct of which they complain. Plaintiff also has no
interests that are in conflict with, or antagonistic to, the interests of class
members. Plaintiff has retained highly competent and experienced class action
attorneys to represent their interests and those of the classes. By prevailing on
her own claims, Plaintiff will establish Defendant’s liability to all class members.
Plaintiff and her counsel have the necessary financial resources to adequately and
vigorously litigate this class action, and Plaintiff and counsel are aware of their
fiduciary responsibilities to the class members and are determined to diligently
discharge those duties by vigorously seeking the maximum possible recovery for
class members.
80. Superiority: There is no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy other
than by maintenance of this class action. The prosecution of individual remedies
by members of the classes will tend to establish inconsistent standards of conduct
for Defendant and result in the impairment of class members’ rights and the
disposition of their interests through actions to which they were not parties. Class
action treatment will permit a large number of similarly situated persons to
prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously, efficiently, and
without the unnecessary duplication of effort and expense that numerous
individual actions would engender. Furthermore, as the damages suffered by
each individual member of the classes may be relatively small, the expenses and
burden of individual litigation would make it difficult or impossible for
individual members of the class to redress the wrongs done to them, while an
important public interest will be served by addressing the matter as a class
action.
81. Plaintiff is unaware of any difficulties that are likely to be
encountered in the management of this action that would preclude its
maintenance as a class action.
Case 2:23-cv-04150 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 32 of 41 Page ID #:32
33
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CAUSES OF ACTION
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(VIOLATION OF THE CONSUMERS LEGAL REMEDIES ACT (THE
“CLRA”), CALIFORNIA
CIVIL CODE § 1750, et seq.)
(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)
82. Plaintiff realleges and incorporate by reference all paragraphs
alleged herein.
83. Defendant’s actions, representations and conduct have violated, and
continue to violate the CLRA, because they extend to transactions that are
intended to result, or which have resulted, in the sale or lease of goods or
services to consumers.
84. Plaintiff and other class members are “consumers” as that term is
defined by the CLRA in California Civil Code § 1761(d).
85. The flights that Plaintiff (and other similarly situated class
members) purchased from Defendant constitute “services” within the meaning of
California Civil Code § 1761(b).
86. Defendant’s acts and practices, set forth in this Class Action
Complaint, led customers to falsely believe that Defendant operated a carbon
neutral airline since March 2020; and that Defendant purchased carbon offsets
that meant it did not release any net additional carbon into the atmosphere on an
annualized basis since March 2020. By engaging in the actions, representations
and conduct set forth in this Class Action Complaint, Defendant has violated,
and continue to violate, § 1770(a)(2), § 1770(a)(3), § 1770(a)(4), § 1770(a)(5)§,
1770(a)(7), and §1770(a)(9) of the CLRA. In violation of California Civil Code §
1770(a)(2), Defendant’s acts and practices constitute improper representations
regarding the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of the services they
sold. In violation of California Civil Code § 1770(a)(3), Defendant’s acts and
practices constitute improper representations regarding the affiliation,
Case 2:23-cv-04150 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 33 of 41 Page ID #:33
34
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
connection, or association with, or certification by, another. In violation of
California Civil Code § 1770(a)(4), Defendant’s acts and practices constitute
deceptive representations or designations of geographic origin in connection with
goods or services. In violation of California Civil Code § 1770(a)(5),
Defendant’s acts and practices constitute improper representations that the
services they sell have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses,
benefits, or quantities, which they do not have. In violation of California Civil
Code § 1770(a)(7), Defendant’s acts and practices constitute improper
representations that the goods they sell are of a particular standard, quality, or
grade, when they are of another. In violation of California Civil Code §
1770(a)(9), Defendant has advertised goods or services with intent not to sell
them as advertised.
87. Plaintiff requests that this Court enjoin Defendant from continuing
to employ the unlawful methods, acts and practices alleged herein pursuant to
California Civil Code § 1780(a)(2). If Defendant is not restrained from engaging
in these types of practices in the future, Plaintiff and the other members of the
Class will continue to suffer harm.
88. CIVIL CODE § 1782 NOTICE. Plaintiff notices and demand that
within thirty (30) days from that date of the filing of this Complaint, Defendant
correct, repair, replace or otherwise rectify the unlawful, unfair, false and or
deceptive practices complained of herein.
89. Should the violations herein alleged not be corrected or rectified as
required by Civil Code § 1782 within 30 days with respect to all Class Members,
Plaintiff will seek to amend this Class Action Complaint to seek, on behalf of
each Class Member, actual damages of at least $1,000, punitive damages, an
award of $5,000 for each Class Member who is a disabled person or senior
citizen, and restitution of any ill-gotten gains due to Defendant’s acts and
practices.
Case 2:23-cv-04150 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 34 of 41 Page ID #:34
35
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
90. Plaintiff also requests that this Court award them costs and
reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to California Civil Code § 1780(d).
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
FALSE ADVERTISING, BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE § 17500,
et seq. (“FAL”)
(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all paragraphs alleged herein.
91. Beginning on March 6, 2020, and repeatedly again within three (3)
years preceding the filing of the Class Action Complaint, Defendant made
untrue, false, deceptive and/or misleading statements in connection with the
advertising and marketing of Delta flights.
92. Defendant made representations and statements (by omission and
commission) that led reasonable customers to believe (i) Delta Airlines operated
a carbon neutral airline since March 2020; and (ii) that Defendant purchased
carbon offsets such that it did not release any net additional carbon into the
atmosphere on an annualized basis since March 2020.
93. Plaintiff and those similarly situated relied to their detriment on
Defendant’s false, misleading and deceptive advertising and marketing practices,
including each of the misrepresentations and omissions set forth in paragraphs
39-45 above. Had Plaintiff and those similarly situated been adequately
informed and not intentionally deceived by Defendant, they would have acted
differently by, without limitation, refraining from purchasing Delta flights, or
paying less for them.
94. Defendant’s acts and omissions are likely to deceive the general
public. Defendant engaged in these false, misleading and deceptive advertising
and marketing practices to increase its profits. Accordingly, Defendant engaged
in false advertising, as defined and prohibited by section 17500, et seq. of the
California Business and Professions Code. These practices, which Defendant
Case 2:23-cv-04150 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 35 of 41 Page ID #:35
36
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
used, and continues to use, to their significant financial gain, also constitute
unlawful competition and provides an unlawful advantage over Defendant’s
competitors as well as injury to the general public.
95. As a direct and proximate result of such actions, Plaintiff and the
other class members have suffered, and continue to suffer, injury in fact and have
lost money and/or property as a result of such false, deceptive and misleading
advertising in an amount which will be proven at trial, but which is in excess of
the jurisdictional minimum of this Court.
96. Plaintiff seeks on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, a
declaration that the above-described practices constitute false, misleading and
deceptive advertising.
97. Plaintiff seeks on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, full
restitution of monies, as necessary and according to proof, to restore any and all
monies acquired by Defendant from Plaintiff, the general public, or those
similarly situated by means of the false, misleading and deceptive advertising
and marketing practices complained of herein, plus interest thereon. Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(e)(2), Plaintiff makes the following allegations
in this paragraph only hypothetically and as an alternative to any contrary
allegations in their other causes of action, in the event that such causes of action
do not succeed. Plaintiff and the Class may be unable to obtain monetary,
declaratory and/or injunctive relief directly under other causes of action and will
lack an adequate remedy at law, if the Court requires them to show classwide
reliance and materiality beyond the objective reasonable consumer standard
applied under the FAL, because Plaintiff may not be able to establish each Class
member’s individualized understanding of Defendant’s misleading
representations as described in this Complaint, but the FAL does not require
individualize proof of deception or injury by absent Class members. See, e.g.,
Ries v. Ariz. Bevs. USA LLC, 287 F.R.D. 523, 537 (N.D. Cal. 2012)
Case 2:23-cv-04150 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 36 of 41 Page ID #:36
37
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(“restitutionary relief under the UCL and FAL ‘is available without
individualized proof of deception, reliance, and injury.’”). In addition, Plaintiff
and the Class may be unable to obtain such relief under other causes of action
and will lack an adequate remedy at law, if Plaintiff are unable to demonstrate
the requisite mens rea (intent, reckless, and/or negligence), because the FAL
imposes no such mens rea requirement and liability exists even if Defendant
acted in good faith.
98. Plaintiff seeks on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, an
injunction to prohibit Defendant from continuing to engage in the false,
misleading and deceptive advertising and marketing practices complained of
herein. Such misconduct by Defendant, unless and until enjoined and restrained
by order of this Court, will continue to cause injury in fact to the general public
and the loss of money and property in that Defendant will continue to violate the
laws of California, unless specifically ordered to comply with the same. This
expectation of future violations will require current and future consumers to
repeatedly and continuously seek legal redress in order to recover monies paid to
Defendant to which it is not entitled. Plaintiff, those similarly situated, and/or
other consumers nationwide have no other adequate remedy at law to ensure
future compliance with the California Business and Professions Code alleged to
have been violated herein.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
UNLAWFUL, UNFAIR, AND FRAUDULENT TRADE PRACTICES IN
VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200, et seq.
(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)
99. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all paragraphs
alleged herein.
100. Since March 2020, and at all times mentioned herein, Defendant
engaged, and continues to engage, in unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent trade
Case 2:23-cv-04150 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 37 of 41 Page ID #:37
38
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
practices in California by engaging in the unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent
business practices outlined in this complaint.
101. In particular, Defendant has engaged, and continues to engage, in
unlawful practices by, without limitation, violating the following state and
federal laws: (i) the CLRA as described herein; and (ii) the FAL as described
herein.
102. In particular, Defendant has engaged, and continues to engage, in
unfair and fraudulent practices by, without limitation, the following: (i)
misrepresenting that Delta Airlines operated a carbon neutral airline since March
2020; and (ii) misrepresenting that Defendant purchased carbon offsets such that
it did not release any net additional carbon into the atmosphere on an annualized
basis since March 2020, and (iii) failing to inform Plaintiff, and those similarly
situated, that the representations stated in (i) and (ii) above are false.
103. Plaintiff and those similarly situated relied to their detriment on
Defendant’s unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices. Had Plaintiff
and those similarly situated been adequately informed and not deceived by
Defendant, they would have acted differently by, without limitation: (i) declining
to purchase Delta flights, or (ii) paying less for Delta flights.
104. Defendant’s acts and omissions are likely to deceive the general
public.
105. Defendant engaged in these deceptive and unlawful practices to
increase its profits. Accordingly, Defendant has engaged in unlawful trade
practices, as defined and prohibited by section 17200, et seq. of the California
Business and Professions Code.
106. These practices, which Defendant used for its significant financial
gain, also constitute unlawful competition and provide an unlawful advantage
over Defendant’s competitors as well as injury to the general public.
107. As a direct and proximate result of such actions, Plaintiff and the
Case 2:23-cv-04150 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 38 of 41 Page ID #:38
39
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
other class members have suffered and continue to suffer injury in fact and have
lost money and/or property in an amount which will be proven at trial, but which
is in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court. Among other things,
Plaintiff and the class members lost the price premium they paid for the Delta
flights based on Defendant’s false “carbon neutral” representations.
108. As a direct and proximate result of such actions, Defendant enjoyed,
and continues to enjoy, significant financial gain in an amount which will be
proven at trial, but which is in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this
Court.
109. Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
equitable relief, including the restitution for the premium and/or full price that
they or others paid to Defendant as a result of Defendant’s conduct. Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(e)(2), Plaintiff makes the following allegations
in this paragraph only hypothetically and as an alternative to any contrary
allegations in their other causes of action, in the event that such causes of action
do not succeed.
110. Plaintiff and the Class may be unable to obtain monetary,
declaratory and/or injunctive relief directly under other causes of action and will
lack an adequate remedy of law, if the Court requires them to show classwide
reliance and materiality beyond the objective reasonable consumer standard
applied under the UCL, because Plaintiff may not be able to establish each Class
member’s individualized understanding of Defendant’s misleading
representations as described in this Complaint, but the UCL does not require
individualized proof of deception or injury by absent class members. See, e.g.,
Stearns v Ticketmaster, 655 F.3d 1013, 1020, 1023-25 (distinguishing, for
purposes of CLRA claim, among class members for whom website
representations may have been materially deficient but requiring certification of
UCL claim for entire class). In addition, Plaintiff and the Class may be unable to
Case 2:23-cv-04150 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 39 of 41 Page ID #:39
40
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
obtain such relief under other causes of action and will lack an adequate remedy
at law, if Plaintiff are unable to demonstrate the requisite mens rea (intent,
reckless, and/or negligence), because the UCL imposes no such mens rea
requirement and liability exists even if Defendant acted in good faith.
111. Plaintiff seeks on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, a
declaration that the above-described trade practices are fraudulent, unfair, and/or
unlawful.
112. Plaintiff seek on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, an
injunction to prohibit Defendant from continuing to engage in the deceptive
and/or unlawful trade practices complained of herein. Such misconduct by
Defendant, unless and until enjoined and restrained by order of this Court, will
continue to cause injury in fact to the general public and the loss of money and
property in that Defendant will continue to violate the laws of California, unless
specifically ordered to comply with the same. This expectation of future
violations will require current and future consumers to repeatedly and
continuously seek legal redress in order to recover monies paid to Defendant to
which they were not entitled. Plaintiff and those similarly situated have no other
adequate remedy at law to ensure future compliance with the California Business
and Professions Code alleged to have been violated herein.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
respectfully request that the Court enter judgment against Defendant as follows:
A. Certification of the proposed Class, including appointment of
Plaintiff’s counsel as class counsel;
B. An award of compensatory damages, including statutory damage
where available, to Plaintiff and the Class Members against Defendant for
all damages sustained as a result of Defendant’s wrongdoing, in an amount
Case 2:23-cv-04150 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 40 of 41 Page ID #:40
41
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
to be proven at trial, including both pre-and post-judgment interest
thereon;
C. An order for full restitution;
D. An order requiring Defendant to disgorge revenues and profits
wrongfully obtained;
E. An order temporarily and permanently enjoining Defendant from
continuing the unlawful, deceptive, fraudulent, and unfair business
practices alleged in this Complaint;
F. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and the costs of suit incurred; and
G. For such further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.
Dated: May 30, 2023 Respectfully submitted,
HADERLEIN AND KOUYOUMDJIAN LLP
Jonathan Haderlein (Cal. Bar No. 336644)
jhaderlein@handklaw.com
Krikor Kouyoumdjian (Cal. Bar No. 336148)
kkouyoumdjian@handklaw.com
19849 Nordhoff St.
Northridge, California 91324
Telephone: (818) 304-34345
RUSSELL LAW, PC
L. David Russell (Cal. Bar No. 260043)
david@russelllawpc.com
1500 Rosecrans Ave, Suite 500
Manhattan Beach, California 90266
Telephone: (323) 638-7551
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class
Case 2:23-cv-04150 Document 1 Filed 05/30/23 Page 41 of 41 Page ID #:41
