In a recent legal development, United Airlines achieved a notable legal victory when a “greenwashing” putative class-action lawsuit against the airline was dismissed by a Maryland federal court. The case, Zajac v. United Airlines, Inc., centered on allegations of misleading environmental claims related to Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF), among other claims, and could have raised questions as to how airlines communicate their environmental efforts and the legal framework governing such claims.

Background of the Lawsuit

The lawsuit in question was filed by plaintiff Alexander Zajac, as a putative class representative, who alleged that United Airlines engaged in greenwashing—a practice where companies allegedly exaggerate or misrepresent their environmental initiatives to appear more eco-friendly. The complaint, as detailed in the court’s docket (Case No. 1:23-cv-01345), focused on United's marketing of SAF, which is an important component of commercial airlines’ strategy to reduce carbon emissions and combat climate change.

SAF is designed to reduce carbon emissions compared to conventional jet fuel, but Mr. Zajac argued that United’s claims about environmental commitment were overstated—that SAF comprised a small amount of United’s total fuel supply and SAF still emits harmful pollutants. He contended that United’s promotional materials misled consumers into believing that its flights were significantly more eco-friendly. On behalf of a putative class, Mr. Zajac asserted a claim under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) and a fraud claim, although he later withdrew the fraud claim.

The Decision

United moved to dismiss the MCPA claim. Judge Paula Xinis of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland agreed with United and dismissed the greenwashing claims under the MCPA—finding that they were preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act, 42 U.S.C. § 41713 (ADA). The ADA expressly prohibits states from “enact[ing] or enforc[ing] any law, rule, regulation, standard, or other provision having the force and effect of law relating to rates, routes, or services of any air carrier.” 49 U.S.C. § 41713. Judge Xinis noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has concluded that the ADA preemption provision, “is a broad one” and that if a state law has “a connection” to “airline rates, routes, or services,” then the claim is preempted. See American Airlines v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219, 223 (1995). Judge Xinis also noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has already concluded that violations of “generally applicable consumer protection laws” related to deceptive fare advertising are preempted by the ADA. From there, Judge Xinis “easily” concluded that Mr. Zajac’s MCPA claim relates to United’s provision of transportation services and is therefore preempted by the ADA. The MCPA claim was dismissed with prejudice and thus the court held that there was no way Mr. Zajac could amend his claim to avoid preemption by the ADA.

Future Implications

The court’s decision is notable for its ruling on the preemptive effect of the ADA in relation to greenwashing claims against airlines. As Judge Xinis ruled, such claims based on state consumer protection laws fall within the preemptive language of the ADA and are subject to early dismissal.  However, not all federal courts agree. Judge Xinis’ ruling follows a decision from early this year in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California where a federal judge held that greenwashing claims against Delta Air Lines, Inc. were not preempted by the ADA.

On March 28, 2024, in Berrin v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong held that the putative class action plaintiff’s claims—that Delta’s carbon-neutrality representations were false—would not bind Delta to any particular rate or service, and thus the claims under California’s consumer protection law were not preempted (Case No. 2:23-cv-04150-MEMF-MRW). To reach this ruling, the district court in Berrin engaged in a strained analysis that relied mainly on one Ninth Circuit case, Dilts v. Penske Logistics, LLC, 769 F.3d 637 (9th Cir. 2014), which held that state laws mandating employee meal and rest breaks as applied to motor carrier drivers were not preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994. The Berrin court then used this analysis to set a higher ADA preemption standard—that only state laws that are “significantly” related to an airline’s prices, routes and services are preempted by the ADA—that appears to brush aside the Supreme Court’s holding that the ADA’s preemption provision is a “broad one” which can preempt state laws even if the effect is “only indirect.” See Morales v. TWA, 504 U.S. 374, 383, 387 (1992).

It remains to be seen if the Berrin court’s questionable decision will be challenged on appeal. Nonetheless, airlines facing greenwashing claims in the United States will certainly take note of the decision in Zajac. Indeed, similar greenwashing claims are pending against KLM Royal Dutch Airlines in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, where KLM has argued that the claims are preempted by the ADA. See Simijanovic v. Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. (Case No. 2:23-cv-12882-SKD-EAS). Immediately following the Zajac decision, KLM brought that decision to the court’s attention. The district court in Simijanovic has yet to rule on the preemption argument.