Litigation Risks Under the DC Consumer Protection Procedures Act: Defense Strategies and Mitigation

In recent years, public interest organizations have increasingly turned to the District of Columbia’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) to bring legal challenges against companies over their public environmental and sustainability claims. While traditionally used to protect consumers from deceptive business practices in everyday transactions, the CPPA has now become a favored tool for challenging the credibility of corporate environmental marketing, such as “net-zero” pledges, “climate-smart” initiatives, and sustainability labeling.

These lawsuits are part of a broader wave of so-called "greenwashing" litigation and signal a growing willingness by public interest groups to use consumer protection statutes to scrutinize corporate environmental messaging. For companies navigating an increasingly complex environmental, social, and governance (ESG) landscape, these cases raise important questions about litigation risk, pleading standards, and strategies for defense.

The Nature of CPPA Cases

Recent CPPA suits brought by public interest organizations on behalf of consumers allege that corporate environmental claims mislead consumers into purchasing products or supporting companies based on misrepresented sustainability credentials. Although organizations may only seek injunctive relief—aimed at halting allegedly deceptive marketing practices—and attorney fees, these cases can give rise to substantial changes for company practices as well as significant legal and reputational costs.

One common allegation is that a company’s carbon neutrality goals are misleading because there is no viable plan for achieving them at scale, or that a product advertised as “climate-smart” or “environmentally sustainable” misleads consumers, given the actual environmental impact of its production. The core contention is that these statements create a misleading impression of the environmental benefits or efforts undertaken, even if such statements are forward-looking or aspirational.

Standing and Jurisdictional Issues

These lawsuits typically seek to remain in DC Superior Court, where the CPPA’s expansive standing provisions and consumer-friendly precedents offer favorable ground to plaintiffs. The suits are usually styled to avoid federal jurisdiction.

Motions to remove such cases to federal court often fail because the monetary value of the relief is calculated based on the “non-aggregation” principle. This principle requires that the cost of an injunction be divided pro rata among DC consumers, making it difficult for defendants to meet the $75,000 amount-in-controversy threshold. As courts have emphasized, the value of an injunction in CPPA suits must be assessed from the perspective of each individual consumer, not the total cost to the defendant of changing its practices.

This was confirmed in cases such as Earth Island Institute v. Coca-Cola Co. and Toxin Free USA v. J.M. Smucker Co., where federal courts remanded CPPA actions to DC Superior Court. This jurisdictional barrier means that defendants must often litigate in the local DC forum, where the law tends to be interpreted expansively in favor of public interest plaintiffs.

Motion Practice Strategies

Although early motions to dismiss in these cases are rarely outcome-determinative, they remain a key part of defense strategy. These motions can narrow the scope of claims, shape discovery, and sometimes prompt favorable settlement discussions. Three main arguments tend to emerge at this early stage:

• Standing Challenges: While DC courts have held that nonprofits may bring CPPA actions without showing injury to themselves, they must still identify consumers with standing to sue. This means showing that the allegedly deceptive conduct would support an action by actual DC consumers. If the class of consumers is vague or includes ineligible individuals (e.g., business purchasers rather than individual consumers), that can support a standing challenge.
• Failure to Plead Reliance: The CPPA requires a showing of consumer reliance on the alleged misrepresentation or omission. Courts have accepted thin pleadings in some cases, particularly when the challenged statements are part of high-profile marketing campaigns. Still, where a complaint lacks any allegations that consumers relied on the specific claims at issue, or that they were even exposed to them, there may be grounds to challenge the sufficiency of the pleadings. Even a partial win on this issue may limit the scope of the case.
• Distinguishing Precedents: Plaintiffs increasingly cite cases like Earth Island v. Coca-Cola where specific and time-bound environmental claims were deemed misleading. Defendants can respond by showing that their own statements were more general, future-facing, or appropriately qualified. The more vague or aspirational the claim, the more difficult it may be for plaintiffs to argue that it misled consumers in a concrete, actionable way.

Preparing for Discovery

If a case survives a motion to dismiss, companies must be prepared for significant discovery burdens. Plaintiffs will likely seek internal documents related to the challenged claims, including, but not limited to, planning documents for achieving sustainability goals, communications on marketing strategy, internal assessments of progress and feasibility, studies or surveys concerning strategic goals of initiatives, and any information regarding impact on sales.

Additionally, because these cases often center on technical environmental representations, expert discovery can be extensive. Companies should be prepared to engage experts on environmental science, consumer behavior, and economics to rebut claims. Even when monetary relief is not sought, plaintiffs may use conjoint analysis to argue that misleading claims caused consumers to pay more for a product. Companies should be prepared to challenge the methodology and assumptions underlying such models with their own defense experts.

Mitigating Risk and Future Litigation Exposure

Beyond defending against individual suits, companies should consider taking steps to reduce the risk of future CPPA or greenwashing litigation. Best practices include the following:

• Substantiating Environmental Claims: Ensure that public-facing sustainability statements are supported by internal documentation and credible methodologies. Aspirational goals should be clearly labeled as such.
• Avoiding Overstatement: Use language such as “100% sustainable,” “climate-friendly,” or “net-zero” with caution unless the company can demonstrate the basis for such claims. Vague, forward-looking statements are less likely to create liability if properly contextualized.
• Evaluating Materiality: Consider whether the environmental claim is likely to influence consumer behavior. If so, it must be supported by evidence, and marketing teams should coordinate with legal and compliance departments to vet such language before release.
• Periodic ESG Audits: Conduct regular audits of ESG and sustainability messaging, both in regulatory filings and consumer-facing platforms. A well-documented audit trail can bolster defenses if litigation arises.
• Monitoring Emerging Trends: Stay current on CPPA litigation trends and enforcement developments. Courts and plaintiffs’ strategies are evolving rapidly, and early awareness can help inform both risk management and public communications strategy.

Conclusion

The CPPA has become a go-to statute for NGO plaintiffs seeking to hold companies accountable for environmental and sustainability messaging. While the legal theories in these cases are still developing, the procedural and reputational risks are real. Companies should be proactive in reviewing their ESG claims, understanding the litigation landscape, and preparing defenses grounded in substantiation, transparency, and clear consumer communication.