Greenpeace’s Anticipated Lawsuit Against JBS Signals More Aggressive Action Against Food Producers for Alleged Climate Change Impacts

Within the past few years, agricultural companies and other food producers have increasingly found themselves in the crosshairs of greenwashing claims focused on climate change. Plaintiffs argue that these companies’ public statements regarding their sustainability initiatives and efforts to reduce emissions run contrary to their actual contributions to global climate change through methane and other emissions and practices such as deforestation. Global beef and poultry producer JBS is no stranger to such claims. In 2024, JBS was sued by the New York Attorney General for allegedly violating consumer protection laws by claiming it would reach “net zero” greenhouse gas emissions by 2024. That suit resulted in JBS agreeing to pay $1.1 million in support of climate-smart agriculture programs; to reform its environmental marketing practices; and to report compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement to the New York Attorney General for three years. Similarly, in 2025, JBS was sued by an environmental advocacy organization in Washington, D.C. for allegedly deceptive statements related to “net zero” emissions; the case was recently remanded from federal court to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and remains pending.

Perhaps emboldened by early successes on greenwashing claims, plaintiffs appear to be expanding their claims against the agriculture and food industries to include liability for climate change itself. In late April 2026, Greenpeace demanded JBS provide information related to its $2.5 billion investments in beef operations in Nigeria and threatened to take legal action in the Netherlands, where JBS is incorporated, for climate impacts associated with those operations. Greenpeace claims that JBS’ activities and their resulting contributions to climate change have violated “a duty of care under Dutch law that requires the company to refrain from conduct that violates human rights, in particular the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment and to take reasonable measures to prevent harm to people and the planet” — a duty that Greenpeace claims is aligned with international human rights laws. According to Inside Climate News, Greenpeace has stated that the anticipated lawsuit could “establish ‘a new frontier in the fight against climate change’; and if successful ‘could set a major precedent for future legal challenges against the industrial agriculture sector, which is a major source of methane emissions.’”

For companies in the food and agriculture sectors, this anticipated legal action against JBS could signal a more aggressive wave of litigation related to climate change impacts. While greenwashing claims — typically pursued on consumer fraud or deception theories — can expose companies to significant penalties and in some instances damages, broad claims for companies’ contributions to climate change and its downstream effects create the potential for more expansive liability and damages. Indeed, litigation against fossil fuel companies has included both greenwashing and tort claims, with tort claims pursued by state and local governments and private individuals on theories such as negligence, trespass, nuisance, and even wrongful death. Governmental plaintiffs assert claims not only for the environmental harms caused by climate change but also the costs those governments have incurred and will incur in the future to adapt and respond to extreme weather events and environmental changes allegedly caused by climate change. Food producers and agricultural companies — whether they produce ultra-processed snacks or industrial beef — are likely to face a growing array of legal challenges, not only to how they market their products, but also to the underlying environmental sustainability of their businesses and their expansion plans.

Companies facing the prospect of such claims would be well-advised to assess their climate-related disclosures, sustainability commitments, business practices, and expansion plans with an eye toward both consumer deception theories and emerging tort and duty-of-care frameworks. Proactive engagement to manage these risks could help mitigate litigation exposure that may be on the horizon. For questions or concerns regarding claims your company may face, please reach out to the authors or your Arnold & Porter contact.

© Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 2026 All Rights Reserved. This Blog post is intended to be a general summary of the law and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.