Amazon sued over ‘dolphin-safe’ and sustainable seafood labels

Amazon is facing a proposed class-action lawsuit from consumers who say the company misled shoppers about the environmental benefits of seafood sold through its online platform and stores.Filed in federal court in Seattle, the lawsuit accuses Amazon of “greenwashing”, using environmental language or imagery to make products appear more sustainable than the available evidence supports. The consumers claim that labels such as “dolphin safe,” “responsibly sourced,” “sustainable,” “wild caught” and “MSC Certified Sustainable Seafood” gave shoppers the impression that the products caused minimal harm to oceans and marine ecosystems.The allegations have not been proven in court. Amazon has not publicly responded to requests for comment about the case, according to a report by Reuters.What the lawsuit claimsThe plaintiffs argue that Amazon’s seafood marketing was broad enough to influence purchasing decisions but did not provide shoppers with enough information to verify the claims. They say consumers may have paid more for products or bought them specifically because they believed the seafood had been sourced in an environmentally responsible way.The lawsuit was filed on behalf of consumers including Madeleine Rogow of Los Angeles and Adam Sorkin of Chicago. They claim they would not have purchased some of the products—or would have paid less for them, if Amazon had disclosed what they describe as the “true sustainable nature” of the seafood.The complaint challenges marketing connected to dozens of tuna, salmon and other seafood products. The products include items sold under well-known brands such as Bumble Bee, Chicken of the Sea, StarKist and Amazon’s own 365 by Whole Foods Market label.The parent companies of those brands,Taiwan’s FCF, Thailand-based Thai Union Group and South Korea’s Dongwon Industries, are not defendants in the lawsuit, according to the report. The case is focused on Amazon’s alleged role in presenting and marketing the products to consumers.Questions about seafood traceabilityA central issue in the case is whether seafood marketed as sustainable can be reliably traced back to the vessels and fishing practices responsible for catching it.The consumers claim that most fishing vessels are not publicly tracked in a way that allows shoppers to confirm where and how seafood was caught. They also allege that some vessels disable electronic tracking devices, known as transponders, making it difficult to monitor their locations and activities.The complaint further claims that at least one-fifth of imported wild-caught seafood is not responsibly or sustainably sourced. The plaintiffs say Amazon’s marketing did not provide the disclosures needed to help consumers understand these limitations.For shoppers, the case raises a practical question: when a packet of tuna or salmon carries an environmental label, how much can a buyer really learn about the journey from the ocean to the supermarket shelf?Why these labels matterTerms such as “dolphin safe” and “wild caught” can sound straightforward, but they may describe only one aspect of a product’s supply chain. A “dolphin safe” label, for example, may address whether dolphins were intentionally harmed during tuna fishing, while saying little about other environmental concerns, such as bycatch, overfishing, habitat damage or vessel monitoring.Similarly, “wild caught” describes how a fish was obtained, not necessarily whether the fishery is sustainable. A wild-caught product may come from a well-managed fishery, but consumers may need additional information to understand the species, location, fishing method and population health.The lawsuit also questions Amazon’s use of “MSC Certified Sustainable Seafood” descriptions. The Marine Stewardship Council certification system has become one of the best-known sustainability labels in the seafood industry, but the complaint challenges whether the way such certifications were presented gave shoppers a complete picture of the products’ environmental impact.The wider problem of greenwashingGreenwashing has become a growing concern across the food and retail industries. Consumers increasingly want to make purchases that support environmental protection, but sustainability claims are often difficult to evaluate without technical information.Seafood supply chains can be especially complicated. Products may pass through several countries, processors, distributors and sellers before reaching a consumer. Fish caught by one vessel may be processed in another country and packaged under a brand name that does not immediately reveal where the seafood originated.That complexity can make it difficult for an ordinary shopper to determine whether a product label reflects independent verification, a company’s own sourcing policy or a general marketing description.The Amazon case argues that retailers should provide clearer information when they use environmental claims. The complaint says that broad messaging without adequate disclosures can lead shoppers to believe that seafood was sourced with fewer environmental consequences than it actually was.Amazon’s position remains unclearAmazon had not responded to media requests for comment at the time of reporting. The company frequently faces lawsuits involving products sold through its platform, including items offered by outside sellers.The company has also grown into one of the largest grocery retailers in the United States. Amazon Chief Executive Andy Jassy said during an April 29 conference call that the company generated more than $150 billion in gross sales in 2025, highlighting the scale of its influence over consumer purchasing.Because Amazon sells products from its own labels, established food brands and third-party sellers, the case could raise broader questions about who is responsible for environmental claims displayed on a retail platform.What consumers are seekingThe proposed class action seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages and restitution for eligible consumers. It also accuses Amazon of violating Washington consumer protection laws.At this stage, the case is only an allegation, and the court will determine whether it can proceed as a class action and whether the claims have legal merit. Amazon may challenge the accusations, dispute responsibility for the product descriptions or provide evidence about the certifications and sourcing standards used.Regardless of the legal outcome, the lawsuit puts a spotlight on how sustainability is communicated to seafood shoppers. Consumers may be willing to pay more for products they believe protect marine ecosystems, but they also expect those claims to be specific, verifiable and honest.The case could ultimately force a closer examination of what words such as “sustainable,” “responsibly sourced” and “dolphin safe” should mean when they appear next to seafood on a digital shopping page.(With inputs from Reuters)Catch the latest World News and Live updates. Download the TOI app.