Earth Island Institute v. The Coca-Cola Company, 321 A.3d 654

Earth Island Institute sued Coca-Cola under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA), citing allegedly deceptive marketing about Coca-Cola’s environmental sustainability efforts.
Earth Island alleged Coca-Cola’s public statements (on its website, reports, and social media) mislead consumers into believing the company is making serious progress toward sustainability, while it continues to heavily rely on single-use plastics.
The suit targets statements made in consumer-facing materials, highlighting both specific (e.g., recycling benchmarks) and general (corporate ethos) claims of sustainability.
The trial court dismissed Earth Island’s complaint, finding the statements non-actionable aspirational puffery, not about “goods or services,” and improperly aggregated from distinct statements.
On appeal, the D.C. Court of Appeals considered standing, the sufficiency of Earth Island’s claim under CPPA, and whether the First Amendment barred the suit.
The appellate court reversed the dismissal, finding Earth Island stated a plausible misrepresentation claim under the CPPA.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are Coca-Cola’s sustainability statements actionable under the CPPA?	Statements falsely portray substantive progress; they mislead consumers about efforts.	Statements are non-actionable puffery or vague aspirations.	Actionable if they imply intent/steps, not just aspirations.
Must misrepresentation relate to specific “goods or services”?	Statements about packaging and recycling are about goods/services under CPPA.	Claims relate only to corporate values, not specific goods/services.	Statements regarding packaging/recycling are about goods/services.
Can a claim aggregate a “mosaic” of separate statements?	Combined statements create a misleading narrative; context matters.	Each statement must be misleading in isolation; aggregation improper.	Series of statements may cumulatively mislead; aggregation allowed.
Does the First Amendment bar misrepresentation claims on these grounds?	Commercial speech that misleads is regulable and not protected.	Speech is protected advocacy on matters of public concern.	First Amendment does not bar suit for misleading commercial speech.

Grayson v. AT&T Corp., 15 A.3d 219 (D.C. 2011) (articulating pleading standard for Rule 12(b)(6) in D.C. courts)
Fort Lincoln Civic Ass’n v. Fort Lincoln New Town Corp., 944 A.2d 1055 (D.C. 2008) (literal truth can still mislead and be actionable under CPPA)
Pearson v. Chung, 961 A.2d 1067 (D.C. 2008) (puffery doctrine and consumer interpretation as factual issues)
Center for Inquiry Inc. v. Walmart, Inc., 283 A.3d 109 (D.C. 2022) (whether a practice is misleading is a factual issue for the jury)
Meta Platforms, Inc. v. District of Columbia, 301 A.3d 740 (D.C. 2023) (false or misleading commercial speech may be regulated under the First Amendment)