Changing economic and political circumstances are prompting US institutions—including colleges and universities—to reconsider their publicly stated sustainability targets and climate commitments. This trend reflects economic pressures, scrutiny of climate action by the current federal administration and some state attorneys general, and the reality that many entities with decarbonization goals (e.g., “net zero by 2050”) are not on track to meet them. 

When revising or abandoning existing environmental sustainability goals, institutions of higher education should be aware of emerging litigation and regulatory risks, as well as concerns that may be raised by students, faculty, and staff, and adopt a strategy to mitigate those risks and communicate any changes with authenticity to institutional mission. 

Litigation Risk Under US Consumer Protection and Related Theories

State attorneys general and environmental nonprofits increasingly challenge sustainability targets as misleading under state unfair or deceptive acts or practices (UDAP) statutes, particularly if institutions announce targets without taking concrete steps necessary to achieve them.

Common law claims – such as misrepresentation, fraud (including omission), unjust enrichment, breach of warranty, public nuisance, and products liability (failure to warn) – also appear in analogous corporate cases, many of which have settled or remain pending. While these matters arise in the corporate, for-profit context, their theories and trajectories are instructive for non-profit colleges and universities given similar public-facing statements, public and student communications, and procurement and investment activities.

• Earth Island Institute v. Coca‑Cola Co. (D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA)): The D.C. Court of Appeals allowed claims to proceed where the plaintiff plausibly alleged that Coca-Cola misled consumers about hitting concrete sustainability benchmarks despite practices showing no intention of doing so; the case is pending on remand.
• New York v. PepsiCo, Inc.: The trial court dismissed claims in 2024, holding that PepsiCo’s promises to reduce plastics were not deceptive, despite allegations that the company repeatedly revised sustainability targets as it failed to meet them; the New York Attorney General has appealed, and the appeal remains in preliminary stages.
• People of the State of New York v. JBS USA Food Company: The parties settled in 2025. The settlement required reframing “Net Zero by 2040” as a “goal” rather than a commitment, substantiating claims about “taking steps” to meet the goal, internal review of consumer-facing statements with certification to NYAG for three years, and a payment of $1.1 million to Cornell University.
• Environmental Working Group v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (D.C. CPPA): The court denied a motion to dismiss, finding plausible claims that Tyson Foods’ “Net Zero by 2050” commitment and related messaging could be false or misleading; the case later settled with commitments to cease certain claims absent expert verification.

These cases highlight that aspirational language may not shield companies if their other statements imply concrete progress or feasibility without substantiation, and that plaintiffs scrutinize whether interim steps, plans, and metrics align with a company’s stated goals.

Practical Guidance for Higher Education When Revising Sustainability Targets

Emerging case law underscores the need to closely review any publicly stated sustainability targets and to calibrate disclosures carefully when plans change. Transparency is important, but successive revisions or acknowledgments of potential shortfalls can themselves be cited in litigation if not framed with adequate context and substantiation.

When abandoning or revising sustainability targets, colleges and universities should consider:

• Whether the costs and risks of continuing to pursue a sustainability target outweigh the litigation and reputational risks of abandoning or revising it. 
• Where to communicate the change, considering the legal implications of each channel (e.g., sustainability reports, institutional websites, fundraising and admissions materials). 
• What to say: explain the rationale for the shift, including whether a new target is set, and why the university community can have confidence in any new target (including interim milestones, metrics, and verification plans). 

Colleges and universities should also:

• Map any potential litigation risk across states where students, faculty and staff, donors, and university operations are located, and align the college’s sustainability claims with substantiated plans and interim progress.
• Validate “taking steps” representations with contemporaneous documentation, governance approvals, and measurable benchmarks consistent with campus operations and financial support.
• Review statements (both university-facing and donor-facing) for consistency and substantiation. 
• Calibrate capital improvement and procurement claims (e.g., “fossil‑free,” “renewable campus”) to avoid implying present facts or guaranteed outcomes.

The Hunton Higher Education and Sustainability teams can assist in assessing your institution’s risks in revising sustainability targets and preparing to communicate any changes to the campus community and donors.