Is Twitter the New Ftc and Epa? Publicized Private Action as the Anti-greenwashing Mechanism in Modern Society

Is Twitter the New FTC and EPA? Publicized

Private Action as the Anti-Greenwashing

Mechanism in Modern Society

CLAIRE FISCHER*

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315

I. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316

II. Current Regulation and Enforcement Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319

A. Federal Regulation and Enforcement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319

1. Federal Trade Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319

2. Environmental Protection Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320

3. Food & Drug Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321

4. U.S. Department of Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322

B. State Regulation and Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323

C. Nongovernmental Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324

D. private right of action for competing companies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324

III. Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325

A. Greenwashing Enforcement: then and Now . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325

1. Executive Action Trending Away from Environmental

Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326

2. Disempowerment of Federal Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327

B. Use Of Private Lawsuits To Pick Up The Government’s Slack . . . . 328

1. The (Not So) Honest Co.: The Reward of Private Action . . . . 328

2. La Croix: The Risk of Private Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330

3. Common Law as a Gap Filler (and Nudge) for Federal

Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331

IV. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332

INTRODUCTION

Consumers are using their wallets to enact environmental and social change,

now more than ever.

1

However, this willingness to spend more on social and eco-

conscious options opens consumers up to a wide range of deceptive practices,

causing them to pay inf‌lated prices for only a minimal amount, if any, of the

* Georgetown Law, J.D. 2020; University of Missouri-Columbia, B.A. 2016. © 2021, Claire Fischer.

1. Green Generation: Millennials Say Sustainability Is a Shopping Priority, NIELSEN (Nov. 5, 2015),

https://perma.cc/7N9K-G99C [hereinafter Green Generation].

315

sought benef‌it. “Greenwashing” is an example of these deceptive practices, where

brands and retailers disseminate information—typically through marketing or

labeling—that presents a more environmentally friendly picture of the product,

company, or service than reality proves.

2

Greenwashing can present itself in sev-

eral forms. One is when a company promotes an “environmental program or

product while its core business is inherently polluting or unsustainable.”

3

Another is when a company uses targeted advertising to highlight a specif‌ic

“green achievement” to divert attention away from its environmentally harmful

practices.

4

Yet another is when a company utilizes inaccurate or misleading

“buzzwords” on specif‌ic products to make the consumer believe that it is a more

sustainable or healthier choice. Due to current resource restrictions and political

pressure, government enforcement of greenwashing is unlikely to prove suff‌icient

to protect consumers and mitigate the practice’s negative environmental impact.

Because of this inability to effectively regulate, widespread access to mass media,

the growing concern about climate change and the environment, and consumers’

willingness to “put their money where their mouths are,” publicized private law-

suits may be the most effective method to curb the spread of “greenwashing.”

With a majority of consumers seemingly willing to pay more for products and

services labeled as “all-natural,” “organic,” or “eco-friendly,”

5

holding these

companies accountable for their claims through judicial pressure and the public

eye may be the only way to halt these deceptive practices, especially in the wake

of the Trump Administration’s policy changes.

I. BACKGROUND

The term “greenwashing” was coined by Jay Westerveld in a 1986 article call-

ing out the hotel industry’s arguably ironic campaign to “save water” by reusing

bath towels. He also criticized the industry’s use of many other practices that sig-

nif‌icantly harm the environment and noted that, in reality, the hotels themselves

would see the biggest positive impact from this project—lower laundry costs.

6

Greenwashing as a concept, however, dates as far back as the 1960s, when the

f‌irst inf‌luential environmental movement began. Companies quickly and consis-

tently recognized the market demand for more sustainable products leading up to

the world’s f‌irst Earth Day in 1970.

7

In the 1980s, after the Bhopal gas leak,

2. Chris Devauld & Leila Green, “Don’t Throw Anything Away”: Greenwashing in Public Relations,

in PROCEEDINGS OF ANZCA: MEDIA, DEMOCRACY, AND CHANGE AUSTL. 2 (2010).

3. Roddy Scheer & Doug Moss, How Can Consumers Find Out If a Corporation Is “Greenwashing”

Environmentally Unsavory Practices?, SCI. AM. (June 29, 2013), https://perma.cc/KDB3-VUBE.

4. Id.

5. Green Generation, supra note 1.

6. Jim Motavalli, A History of Greenwashing: How Dirty Towels Impacted the Green Movement,

AOL (Feb. 12, 2011), https://perma.cc/RTJ7-TCEY.

7. Joshua Karliner, A Brief History of Greenwash, CORPWATCH (Mar. 22, 2001), https://perma.cc/

N7MQ-L68V; Devauld & Green, supra note 2, at 1.

316 THE GEORGETOWN ENVTL. LAW REVIEW [Vol. 33:315