British American Tobacco sued for promoting supposedly carbon-neutral vape

British American Tobacco (BAT) is facing a class-action lawsuit in the United States, according to The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, for advertising its Vuse vaping brand as "carbon neutral." The lawsuit follows revelations questioning the authenticity of the carbon credits the company purchased to support this claim. The case has reignited criticism of greenwashing practices in the tobacco industry.

Class action lawsuit filed in California

June 4, 2025[1], a class action lawsuit has been officially filed in the District Court of Northern California against British American Tobacco and its subsidiary RJ Reynolds Vapor Company. In this lawsuit, the plaintiffs accuse the two entities of having disseminated misleading claims regarding the environmental impact of their products, in particular for the Vuse line of e-cigarettes, presented for several years as “the world’s first carbon neutral vaping brand.”

According to the plaintiffs, this claim, widely publicized in BAT's advertising campaigns in the United States and internationally, is based on the purchase of carbon credits that have no real environmental value. By relying on these credits to claim climate neutrality, BAT intentionally misled millions of consumers into believing that their purchase was contributing to the fight against climate change.

The consumers behind the complaint also denounce the abusive exploitation of an ecological discourse as part of a marketing strategy aimed at influencing purchasing behavior, particularly among young adults sensitive to climate issues. The use of such an environmental argument to promote a product containing nicotine, a highly addictive substance, raises major concerns in terms of commercial ethics.

The plaintiffs are seeking compensation in the amount of $5 million, representing the estimated damages suffered by defrauded consumers. They rely on several journalistic investigations and independent analyses that have demonstrated that the carbon credits purchased by BAT came from projects whose climate effectiveness is now widely disputed.

Finally, the appeal highlights the gap between BAT's public statements and the reality of its practices. While the company claimed to be working toward a "combustion-free and more sustainable" future, it continued to promote its products with unfounded environmental messages, despite warnings issued as early as 2022 by several carbon market verification bodies.

Carbon credits deemed fictitious

At the heart of the legal case is the controversial use of carbon credits intended to offset emissions related to the manufacturing, distribution, and promotion of its vaping products. As early as 2021, BAT claimed that its Vuse brand had achieved "carbon neutrality" thanks to the purchase of more than 130,000 carbon credits from a reforestation project in Uruguay. The project, led by Silvestrum Climate Associates, a Harvard University partner company, involved planting eucalyptus trees on private farmland.[2].

However, several independent assessments have called into question the validity of these credits. In 2022, the agency Renoster, which specializes in analyzing carbon offset projects, estimated that the Uruguayan project had not sequestered any additional tons of CO₂, giving it a net value of zero. For its part, BeZero Carbon concluded that the project had a "low probability" of generating a real climate impact. These analyses point in particular to the lack of "additionality"—that is, the inability to prove that the plantations would not have taken place without the financing linked to the carbon credits.

Despite these warnings, BAT continued to use these credits to support its environmental communications strategy, incorporating them into its advertising campaigns and "corporate social responsibility" materials. According to available data, more than a third of the credits used by BAT to offset Vuse's emissions came directly from this discredited Uruguayan project.

The fictitious nature of the credits was also highlighted by a landmark 2021 PR stunt: to celebrate Vuse's "carbon neutrality," BAT chartered a yacht on the Thames, generating nearly 10 additional tons of CO₂ on its own. These emissions were also "offset" by the same Uruguayan credits, illustrating the inconsistency of the model used.

Suspended but persistent communication

Faced with growing criticism, BAT announced in December 2023 that it would suspend its promotional messages related to carbon neutrality. The company has since stated that it is moving toward concrete efforts to reduce emissions, notably through the eco-design of devices, the optimization of its supply chain, and sustainable electricity supply.

However, the Bureau's investigation shows that messages mentioning Vuse's carbon neutrality still appeared on the brand's website and in certain promotional materials at the end of 2024. For the complainants, the persistence of this advertising communication constitutes further proof of the systemic nature of the greenwashing practiced by the group.

A call to regulate environmental statements

These practices are part of a well-known greenwashing mechanism, where ecological claims are used as a marketing tool, and are nothing more than mere allegations without scientific basis or rigorous monitoring. However, in a context of ecological transition and global mobilization against climate change, such abuses threaten the credibility of genuine efforts in environmental responsibility. The BAT case highlights the urgent need to strengthen the legal framework regarding climate and ecological claims made by manufacturers, particularly in sectors whose activity is inherently polluting or hazardous to health.

Several avenues are regularly raised by public health organizations and regulatory authorities:

• Subject environmental claims to independent prior verification, based on objective scientific data;
• Strictly regulate the use of carbon offset credits, guaranteeing their traceability, their permanence, and their real additional effect;
• Ban ecological communications on products with proven health or environmental impacts, such as tobacco products, as already exists for statements relating to health or well-being.

In the case of nicotine products, misleadingly presenting a device as "climate-friendly" helps trivialize its use, mitigate its perceived dangers, and maintain a positive image of the industry, in flagrant contradiction with public health objectives. It is also part of a broader repositioning strategy by tobacco manufacturers, who are seeking to green their reputation while continuing to market addictive products with a high environmental impact.

Finally, this case serves as a reminder that economic actors, and particularly those from controversial sectors, must take responsibility for the negative externalities they create according to the polluter pays principle and be transparent about their practices, public health actors point out.

At a time when consumers are demanding greater transparency, unfounded or misleading claims about a product's "sustainability" must be effectively punished. Otherwise, manufacturers, particularly tobacco manufacturers, risk misusing the measures in place to the detriment of health and environmental protection objectives.

©Generation Without Tobacco

AE

[1] Sasha Baker, Tobacco Giant hit with $5 million lawsuit over 'carbon neutral vape', The Bureau, published June 4, 2025, accessed June 10, 2025

[2] Tobacco-free generation, British American Tobacco bought fictitious carbon credits to offset its global warming activities, published November 25, 2024, accessed June 10, 2025