Other Notable Developments
Plastic Pollution: The U.S. has indicated that it will support the United Nations plastic pollution treaty.
EU: Finland Sued by Rights Groups over Lack of Progress on Climate Goals
On August 2, 2024, Greenpeace Norden, Amnesty International Finland, and four other Finnish environmental non-governmental organizations (“NGOs”) filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Administrative Court of Finland (“SAC”) against the government for not progressing on climate goals set in its 2022 Climate Act. The suit comes on the heels of a similar Greenpeace-led suit against the Finnish government that was dismissed on procedural grounds by the SAC in 2023, on the basis that only administrative decisions (not inaction) can constitute grounds for an appeal. Though the SAC concluded in the 2023 case that it was not possible to conclude that government inaction would have meant violating the Climate Act “at this stage” (since only a short period of time had passed since the Climate Act’s entry into force), it also indicated that fundamental rights could justify an exemption to this procedural rule.
In the present suit, the NGOs accused the Finnish government of “failing to enact solutions, cancelling agreed actions and refusing to revise Finland’s outdated climate plan for land use and forestry” in violation of the Climate Act. As a result, the NGOs believe that Finland has veered off course for becoming climate neutral by 2035.
The NGOs brought this suit following the European Court of Human Rights ruling in a case brought against the government of Switzerland that governments have a duty to uphold human rights by curbing climate change. Though a Swiss parliamentary committee later voted against implementing the European Court of Human Rights’ climate ruling, the NGOs argue that Finland, as a party to the European Convention on Human Rights, has a positive obligation to take adequate and timely action to mitigate climate change to safeguard the human rights guaranteed by Convention.
Link:
Greenpeace Press Release
U.S.: Greenwashing Suit against United Airlines Not Allowed to Proceed
On August 13, 2024, a federal district court in Maryland dismissed with prejudice a class action against United Airlines that alleged the airline made deceptive claims related to its sustainable aviation practices.
Brought under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”) in November 2023, the class action accused United of falsely advertising its sustainability efforts with the aim of inducing customers to pay higher prices on flights than they otherwise would have in the absence of such advertising. The main plaintiff claimed that, between 2020 and 2023, United advertised its intent to be “100% green” and “carbon neutral by 2050.” It also allegedly advertised its “Eco-Skies” program, which aimed to curb the adverse environmental impact of flying by, in part, using sustainable aviation fuel in lieu of traditional fossil fuels. Furthermore, the plaintiff claimed that, in December 2021, United advertised that it would be the first airline “in aviation history to fly a passenger flight using 100% Sustainable Aviation Fuel.” The plaintiff argued that United misrepresented its Eco-Skies Program and the use of sustainable aviation fuel in violation of the MCPA because only 0.025% of United’s total fuel supply consisted of sustainable aviation fuel. The plaintiff argued that he would not have paid the allegedly higher price for a flight with United had this fact been revealed to him before he booked his flight.
In her ruling, Judge Paula Xinis agreed with United that the claims against United are preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act, which precludes states from regulating the rates, routes, or services provided by airlines. Because the complaint accused United of inducing customers to book flights with United, the “MCPA claim relates to United’s provision of transportation services and is therefore preempted by the Deregulation Act.”
Links:
Zajac v. United Airlines Complaint
Memorandum Opinion
U.S.: Texas Federal Court Blocks FTC’s Impending Ban on Noncompetes
On August 20, 2024, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas set aside a Federal Trade Commission rule (“FTC Rule”) that would have banned nearly all post-employment noncompete agreements. As a result of the ruling, the FTC rule will not go into effect on September 4, 2024.
The proposed FTC Rule sought to restrict entry into and enforcement of noncompete clauses. In its summary judgment, the Texas court concluded that the FTC exceeded its statutory authority in issuing the FTC Rule because the FTC lacks substantive rulemaking authority under the FTC Act. The court also found the prohibition on noncompetes to be “arbitrary and capricious because it is unreasonably overbroad” and imposes “a one-size-fits-all approach with no end date.”
For an in-depth discussion on the ruling, please see our Debevoise Debrief: Federal Court Sets Aside FTC Final Noncompete Rule Nationwide.
Links:
Memorandum Opinion and Order
FTC Rule
Debevoise Debrief
This publication is for general information purposes only. It is not intended to provide, nor is it to be used as, a substitute for legal advice. In some jurisdictions it may be considered attorney advertising.