Consumers are alleging Amazon has been deceptive regarding its environmental claims on seafood items on its platform, and have brought forth a proposed class action suit. The suit alleges Amazon is greenwashing with its labels, including “dolphin safe,” “responsibly sourced,” “sustainable,” “wild caught” and “MSC Certified Sustainable Seafood,” on tuna, salmon and other seafood products, all of which are sold in Seattle federal court. Plaintiffs say the representations lead to a false impression that the seafood sold on Amazon‘s platform poses low risk to marine ecosystems and the larger ocean ecosystem.
The lawsuit comes as more consumers are aware of and skeptical about sustainability marketing in retail, a trend that has been increasingly reported over the last few years. As Amazon has emerged as a corporate leader in sustainability programs, it now has to contend with questions about whether its product labels reflect what is happening in global seafood supply chains. So the company’s marketing extends beyond being a branding exercise and becomes what the plaintiffs allege is a form of deception — consumers might be willing to pay top dollar for products that don’t meet their environmental expectations.
The crux of the lawsuit is Amazon’s claims of sustainability are either untrue or lacking evidence. The consumers highlight the lack of enforcement and transparency in the global fishing industry, especially because very few fishing vessels are publicly monitored. Worse, some ships intentionally turn off their electronic transponders to conceal their location and activity, which makes it difficult to assess whether their sustainability claims are accurate or not. The complaint also relies on data revealing that a minimum of one-fifth of imported wild-caught seafood that comes to the United States is not responsible or sustainable sourced.
However, Amazon has been selling products under a general environmental sustainability message without delivering the required disclosures to enable consumers to make informed choices, in spite of these well-documented issues with the seafood sector. The lawsuit states that this is a violation of the Washington consumer protection laws, and the plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages and restitution on behalf of consumers nationwide who bought seafood from Amazon’s platform believing they were buying seafood that supported sustainable fishing practices.
Los Angeles’ Madeleine Rogow and Chicago’s Adam Sorkin are the main plaintiffs in this lawsuit. Both say that they would not have bought the Amazon seafood products they did, or that they’d pay less for them, if the company had been honest about what the products are.Both say they wouldn’t have bought the Amazon seafood products that they did or that they’d pay less for them if the company had been truthful about the actual products. The experience is part of a trend of consumer frustration that businesses are using the environment as a ‘marketing ploy’ rather than a true commitment to sustainability.
The lawsuit alleges that the majority of the seafood products featured under popular brands like Bumble Bee, Chicken of the Sea, StarKist and Amazon’s 365 by Whole Foods Market are seafood that was never caught by a fisherman.Most of the seafood products under the popular brands such as Bumble Bee, Chicken of the Sea, StarKist and Amazon’s own 365 by Whole Foods Market are seafood that “was never caught by a fisherman,” according to the lawsuit. In particular, the brands’ parent companies – Taiwan’s FCF for Bumble Bee, Thai Union Group for Chicken of the Sea and South Korea’s Dongwon Industries for StarKist – are not named as the defendants in the lawsuit. The lawsuit specifically targets Amazon’s status as a retailer, and its obligations regarding the claims on its website.
This case comes as one in a series of cases brought against Amazon by consumers for its products and services sold on its platform, especially by third party sellers. The company has faced similar issues regarding its responsibility for items on its own list by other sellers, but this suit is a case of Amazon’s own marketing and labelling practices, not products. Amazon has a market position that makes it a key player in the food retail sector: gross sales in 2025 are estimated at more than $150 billion, meaning that the practices have far-reaching implications for consumer trust.
The lawsuit has important questions to raise regarding the nexus between consumer protection law and corporate sustainability marketing. The issue of greenwashing has risen to a heightened level of public awareness for regulators and consumer advocates, while companies in all industries have seen the business advantages of marketing themselves as green. But the lack of consistency in definitions and how this can be substantiated or contested for terms such as sustainable and responsibly sourced has created a situation where it can be challenging to verify and dispute these terms.
On the consumer side, the case illustrates the difficulties that consumers encounter when making pro-environment consumer choices. Consumers are generally motivated to buy fish that are caught in a sustainable manner, but they do not have the capacity to check for themselves whether products are labelled as such. This puts consumers on a pedestal and places a huge burden on retailers and brands to maintain their trust, but when the companies are perceived as making misleading claims, they risk losing consumers’ trust.
The case may impact the future for Amazon and other big retailers when it comes to sustainability labelling. The court’s decision could lead to a rethinking of how the industry at large makes and verifies environmental claims in retail. This could result in increased disclosure standards and possibly more liability for retailers for the statements made for products that are sold on their platforms.
