New York Court Dismisses Suit Against JBS but Allows Attorney General to File Amended Complaint

By Leonard L. Gordon & Eden Caliendo

Environmental claims are a powerful tool for companies to demonstrate their commitment to sustainability and connect with values-driven consumers. However, these claims are facing increased legal scrutiny, as governments and regulators aim to close the gap between companies’ climate pledges and their corporate actions.

The recent case of People of the State of New York v. JBS highlights the growing risks associated with sustainability and environmental advertising. Filed after the National Advertising Review Board (NARB) recommended that JBS discontinue certain sustainability claims that formed the basis of the suit, this case underscores how environmental claims can invite challenges from multiple fronts, including federal and state regulators, self-regulatory entities, competitors, and consumers, and how courts are wrestling with where the lines are for such claims.

During a hearing on January 10, 2025, the Supreme Court of New York dismissed the New York attorney general’s lawsuit against JBS USA Food Company and JBS USA Food Company Holdings (JBS). But the court is allowing the AG to file an amended complaint by April 10—90 days from the hearing—to address deficiencies in the complaint. If the AG does not file an amended complaint by that deadline, the court will dismiss the case with prejudice.

The complaint alleged that JBS, one of the world’s largest meat producers, misled consumers in violation of New York consumer protection laws by making “sweeping representations” about its commitment to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions (claiming that it will be “net zero by 2040”) because JBS does not have a viable plan in place to achieve that goal. The complaint further argued that, even with such a plan, JBS could not feasibly meet its pledge because of the scale of its operations and the significant challenges associated with reducing emissions from industrial agriculture, asserting that achieving net zero would require “unprecedented” and costly efforts.

According to the complaint, unsupported environmental marketing claims harm the consumers who are willing to pay more for sustainable products. According to the AG, these consumers must rely on the accuracy of corporate statements, as it is very difficult for consumers to verify such claims on their own.

During the hearing, Judge Andrew Borrok questioned whether JBS’s statements about becoming “net zero by 2040” are actionable under New York law, which says a promise for results without a plan can be actionable as fraud if there is an absence of a plan or intent to meet the promise. If JBS’s statements about becoming “net zero by 2040” lacked a plan or intent to achieve that result, the statements could be actionable as fraud.

However, Borrok noted that JBS has taken significant steps toward its stated goals, including committing to a $1 billion sustainability plan, forming partnerships, and exploring methane-reduction technologies. He suggested that because these actions demonstrate JBS’s plan and intention to achieve its goals, it is unclear whether JBS’s statements can be considered fraudulent as a matter of law.

Borrok emphasized that before the complaint was filed, JBS modified its advertised statements from a firm “commitment to achieve” to an “ambition to achieve” “net zero by 2040,” clarifying that the statements are merely aspirational instead of a guaranteed promise. The judge noted that for JBS’s statements to be actionable, the AG must demonstrate the absence of either a plan or intent behind JBS’s claims, neither of which was sufficiently alleged in the complaint.

In doing so, Borrok appeared unconvinced that JBS’s statements violate New York law, given that they are now purely aspirational and that regardless, JBS is taking concrete steps and has a genuine plan and intent to achieve its aspirational goal of becoming “net zero by 2040.” The court also raised questions about personal jurisdiction over JBS that will need to be remedied in any amended complaint.

Whether the AG can plead facts sufficient to satisfy the court remains to seen, and the decision may give some well-needed guidance to companies trying to make aspirational green claims. The court’s reliance on the steps taken by JBS highlights the importance of taking concrete steps to support any aspirational claims. Without a clear and actionable strategy, even aspirational goals—such as achieving “net zero”—can be challenged as deceptive. Companies must strike a delicate balance between transparency and caution, ensuring their advertisements are supported by measurable progress and avoiding overpromising on sustainability goals.

Download the new, 13th annual Advertising Law Tool Kit, and secure your seat for Venable’s 11th Advertising Law Symposium on March 20 in Washington, DC. Be sure to check out Season 2 of the Ad Law Tool Kit Show, our podcast that examines the increasingly complex regulatory landscape. For more insights into advertising law, bookmark our All About Advertising Law blog and subscribe to our monthly newsletter. To learn more about Venable’s Advertising Law services, click here or contact one of the authors.