A significant class-action lawsuit has recently been filed against Amazon, signaling a major turning point in how consumers and legal bodies view the concept of “sustainability” in the grocery aisle. The complaint, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, centers on the allegation that Amazon and several prominent seafood brands—including 365 by Whole Foods, Bumble Bee, Starkist, and Fishwife—have been misleading shoppers through deceptive environmental labeling. At the heart of the dispute are terms like “dolphin safe,” “sustainable,” and “responsibly sourced,” which plaintiffs argue are being used as a cloak for practices that are far from environmentally friendly. By placing these labels on products certified by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), the lawsuit claims, Amazon creates a false sense of security for shoppers who are actively trying to make ethical purchasing decisions.
The core of the legal argument lies in the disconnect between what consumers expect from a “sustainable” label and the reality of the fishing methods often employed by MSC-certified fisheries. According to the lawsuit, the MSC certification process is fundamentally flawed because it often greenlights industrial practices that are inherently destructive to marine ecosystems. The complaint highlights that these certified fisheries frequently engage in bottom-trawling, dredging, and the use of fish aggregating devices, all of which result in significant bycatch—the accidental capture of non-target species like sea turtles, sharks, and dolphins. The plaintiffs argue that Amazon knowingly obscures these realities, using the MSC seal as a shortcut to signal environmental stewardship without providing the transparency necessary for a truly informed purchase.
The plaintiffs, Madeleine Rogow of Los Angeles and Adam Sorkin of Chicago, represent the thousands of everyday shoppers who feel they have been sold a bill of goods. Like many Americans, Rogow and Sorkin were making a conscious effort to vote with their wallets, paying premiums for products they believed protected the ocean. Instead, they argue they were duped by what the law firm representing them, Hagens Berman, describes as a “hook, line, and sinker” marketing deception. For these consumers, the issue isn’t just about the product inside the can; it’s about the broken promise of a company that capitalizes on environmental altruism. They are seeking not only financial restitution but also an end to the practices that they believe exploit consumer goodwill for corporate profit.
Steve Berman, the managing partner of Hagens Berman, did not mince words when describing the industry’s reliance on the MSC label, labeling the organization a “pay-for-play” scheme. The lawsuit goes as far as to suggest that the MSC certification is essentially a hollow stamp of approval that prioritizes industrial interests over ecological health. By allowing these labels to dominate their platform, Amazon is accused of violating the Federal Trade Commission’s “Green Guides,” which strictly advise against making broad, unqualified environmental claims. The legal team argues that because Amazon holds such a dominant position in the retail market, its failure to vet these claims properly carries significant consequences, effectively normalizing a form of corporate gaslighting regarding our oceans’ health.
This legal action against Amazon is far from an isolated incident; rather, it is the latest ripple in a rising tide of litigation targeting major retailers and seafood distributors. Companies like Walmart, ALDI, and Gorton’s have faced similar heat in recent years, reflecting a growing judicial and consumer impatience with “greenwashing.” The settlement reached by Conagra earlier in 2024 regarding the MSC label on its own products serves as a harbinger of the risks these companies face. As the public becomes more savvy about how supply chains operate, the “sustainability” label—once a gold standard of consumer trust—is rapidly becoming a significant legal liability for any company that refuses to look beyond a single, third-party certification.
Ultimately, the lawsuit echoes the warnings of marine conservationists who have long argued that relying solely on certification schemes is a dangerous, outdated approach. Organizations like the Make Stewardship Count coalition are pushing for a more robust framework, one where retailers move beyond the “stamp on the label” and engage in rigorous, transparent due diligence. As this case moves through the court system, it serves as a powerful reminder that the era of blind trust in green-labeled products is coming to an end. For Amazon and the broader seafood industry, the message is clear: if they want to earn the loyalty of the modern, ethically minded consumer, they must replace performative marketing with actual, verifiable accountability.