News Detail Banner
All News & Events

Carbon Offsets: A Coming Wave of Litigation?

September 07, 2022
Firm Memoranda

To view a pdf of this client alert, please click here.

Starting in late 2021, KLM Airlines launched a “CO2ZERO” carbon offset program under  the banner of “Fly Responsibly” and offered passengers the option “to offset (part of) the impact”  of their flights by making a small payment into KLM’s “reforestation programme.”  This program  consists of KLM’s purchase of carbon offsets from a project in Panama called CO2OL Tropical Mix.   Sounds like a great idea, right?    

So it seemed, until last month, when environmental groups sued KLM Royal Dutch Airlines in The Netherlands for allegedly exaggerating the benefits of the carbon offsets it purchased and  advertised to compensate for its flight emissions.1  Although the claimants acknowledged that  “planting trees” is generally a good thing, they levelled a litany of criticisms at the notion of carbon  offsets, asserting that KLM’s claims of associated greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction were overstated. 

The KLM lawsuit is a wake-up call to any business relying on the rapidly expanding market for carbon offsets to fulfill stated “net zero” commitments.  The voluntary market for carbon offsets  is projected to reach $180 billion by 2030.  Yet, it is largely unregulated and fragmented, suffers from  differing accounting methodologies and standards, and has been described as “the Wild West” and  ripe for fraud. 

The lack of uniform standards in or regulation of the Voluntary Carbon Market means that not all carbon offsets (also commonly called “carbon credits”)2 are created equal and that businesses  who promote their “net zero” goals by relying on them face the same risk as KLM—being accused  of “greenwashing”—spreading disinformation to present an environmentally responsible public  image.  Businesses that buy carbon offsets must know what they are buying, monitor the projects  associated with the offsets they buy, and not oversell their utility in achieving “net zero” goals. 

1. The Rise Of “Net Zero” Pledges And The Voluntary Carbon Market 

It is now mainstream for large businesses to proclaim a goal of “net zero” emissions.  Few businesses have the capability to extract CO2 from the atmosphere on a large scale.  Achieving a “net  zero” goal thus usually requires purchasing carbon offsets,3 in what has become known as the  Voluntary Carbon Market (VCM).  From 2018 to 2021, the VCM’s value grew from $300 million to $1 billion,4 and McKinsey estimates that it will grow rapidly in the coming decades, possibly reaching  $180 billion by 2030.5 

The VCM allows the owners of projects that reduce atmospheric GHG levels to sell the  “credit” for those reductions.  These projects usually involve conserving forests or generating  renewable energy.6  The owner of such a project applies to an (ostensibly) independent registry for  tradable instruments known as carbon offsets.  The registry examines the project, often in reliance  on complex information supplied by the owner, and issues offsets to the owner based on the  registry’s estimate of the project’s GHG reductions.  The norm is for one offset to represent one  metric ton of CO2 equivalent7 taken or kept out of the atmosphere.  After a registry issues an offset,  the project owner can sell it to whomever wants. The first buyers may be those who seek to profit  by re-selling it, such as brokers, retailers, or institutional investors.  Eventually, the offset will be  bought by an “end user” who wants to take credit for the GHG reduction the offset represents, such  as a company seeking to achieve “net zero.”8  At that point, the offset must be “retired” by the  registry that issued it to ensure that it cannot be resold.  As the theory goes, the end user of a carbon  offset deserves credit for the GHG reduction the offset represents, because the end user’s patronage  is what incentivized the GHG-reducing project from which the offset derived.

2. The Impact of Carbon Offsets Is Not Easily Measured

As explained by climate researcher Eli Mitchell-Larson, offset purchasers are “getting the  ability to say they’ve neutralized one ton of their emissions” for each offset they purchase.9  When  businesses make such statements, they are true only insofar as each offset they purchase actually  represents no less than one ton of CO2 equivalent (tCO2e) being taken or kept out of the atmosphere.   If the offsets actually represent a lesser GHG reduction, or none at all, then those statements would  be misleading and potentially create liability.  It is thus necessary for buyers to learn how to spot and avoid “low quality” offsets—those that are unlikely to actually achieve the GHG reduction they  represent. 

This can be a difficult task.  A 2010 investigation by The Christian Science Monitor and The New  England Center for Investigative Reporting concluded:  “Voluntary carbon offsets are a ‘Wild West’ market  ripe for fraud, exaggeration, and poorly run projects that probably do little to ease global warming.”10   According to McKinsey, little has changed in the ensuing decade.   It characterizes the VCM as a  “[f]ragmented and complex market with low to no regulation, different accounting methodologies  with varying degrees of rigor and a variety of industry-created standards.”11  Climate policy experts  Danny Cullenward and David Victor add that “[c]onflicts of interest run rife in the offsets world,”  including because “the firms that verify offset projects’ purported emission reductions are nearly  always paid by the project developers themselves.”12  Bloomberg has reported “gaping loopholes” in  the market’s hyper-technical verification methods that allow verifiers to ignore common-sense signs  of shenanigans.13 The consulting firm Frontier Economics calls the VCM a “market for lemons,”  where a lack of oversight has allowed a “race to the bottom” to settle at a “‘low quality, low price’  equilibrium.”14  The Economist magazine agrees that the “price of a carbon offset is far too low,”  largely because buyers cannot tell the quality of what they are buying.15 And Greenpeace broadly  denounces  carbon  offsets  as  “the  next  big  thing  in  greenwashing”  and  “a  scammer’s  dream  scheme.”16   

The   most   obvious   factor   affecting   an   offset’s   “quality”—and   the   potential   for  misstatements—is the reliability of the methodology used to calculate the GHG reduction.  Scientific  errors can lead to massive overestimates of GHG reductions.  For instance, a recent analysis by the  non-profit CarbonPlan found that the methodology used by California’s forestry-based offset  program  overlooked  significant  biological  differences  between  tree  species.    This  resulted  in  overestimating the program’s GHG reductions by 30%, which translated to an additional 30 million  tCO2e in the atmosphere and $410 million in offsets that were worthless to the climate.17  The  purchasers of such miscalculated offsets may unintentionally be making false statements about their  progress in meeting “net zero” goals.  Or they may be aware that they are doing so.   

And when it comes to evaluating the impact offsets, the “hard science” may be the easy part.   There are four conceptual problems with measuring an offset’s impact that contribute to litigation  risks: 


“Additionality” is the key causal link that justifies giving credit for a GHG reduction.  

Additionality requires that the GHG-reducing activity of an offset project would not have occurred  but-for the incentive to generate offsets.  In other words, had the purchaser not bought the offset, the seller  would not have undertaken the carbon-reducing activity.   

One study found that an alarming 52% of the offsets generated by wind farms in India  through the United Nations’ Clean Development Mechanism derived from wind farms that “would  very likely have been built anyway,” meaning that those offsets had nothing to do with GHG  reductions.18  Because we can never know what project developers would have done in the absence  of a market for offsets, the best we can do is to estimate how “additional” a project seems to be.19   The less likely the project is to be additional, the lower the quality of its offsets.  

Additionality is a major problem with forestry-based offsets, especially a common type of  project known as REDD+, an acronym for “reducing emission from deforestation and forest  degradation.”  REDD+ projects aim to protect existing forests from being destroyed or degraded.   But it is sometimes unclear that any destruction or degradation would have happened without the  project.20  For instance, investigations by Bloomberg found that one environmental organization  generated offsets to protect trees on Pennsylvania’s Hawk Mountain, even though those trees were  already  being  protected  by  another  NGO.21    The  same  organization  recently  sold  offsets  to  purportedly protect 72% of a forest called Pennsylvania Ridges, even though it had bought (and  protected) most of that land in 1999.22  Likewise, another major environmental organization began  selling offsets in 2013 for purportedly protecting the trees in South Carolina’s Beidler Forest, even  though the organization has owned the forest since 1970 and, according to its former manager,  “never intended” to cut them down.23  Such conduct could create legal exposure not only for the  project developers, but also for those that buy their offsets and use them to support statements about  their carbon footprints. 

There is good reason to suspect that “non-additional” projects are the norm rather than the  exception.  By definition, “non-additional” projects can afford to sell offsets at much lower prices  than “additional” projects.  Thus, if offsets are suspiciously cheap, they likely come from non- additional projects.  And, disturbingly, it turns out that most offsets in the VCM are suspiciously  cheap:  When timber executive Jim Hourdequin grew skeptical of the offset market and decided to  calculate how much it would cost him to generate truly additional forestry offsets by truly reducing  his harvests, he arrived at $60 per offset.24  Yet, in recent years, the VCM’s average price for forestry  offsets has been around $5, and around $3 for offsets across all types.25 


“Leakage” occurs when the suppression of a bad activity in one place results in an increase  in that activity elsewhere.  For instance, it is generally more profitable to use land in the Sumatran  rainforest to farm palm oil than to conserve trees and sell offsets.26  Thus, even if the owner of one  part of the rainforest abstains from palm oil farming to conserve the trees, the result may simply be  that more palm oil is farmed elsewhere until supply matches demand.27  Such leakage would mean  that any offsets derived from the eco-conscious landowner’s conservation of trees are unrelated to  any overall GHG reduction.  There is no way to measure leakage precisely; it can only be estimated.   The more susceptible to leakage a project seems, the lower the quality of its offsets.   


Offset projects based on forestry and other “nature-based” ways of trapping carbon in plants  and soil are generally useless in the fight against climate change unless they last a long time.  One- hundred years is a common standard.  When, for instance, a forest being conserved by an offset  project is destroyed, the carbon it had been storing is released into the atmosphere, defeating the  purpose of the offsets generated and sold.  This could happen by accident, as it did in 2021 when  wildfires in the western United States burned an estimated 153,000 acres of offset-project forests.28   Absent  effective  safeguards,  this  could  conceivably  happen  through  a  mischievous  “carbon  spoofing” scheme.  In the securities market, a trader engages in “spoofing” by placing a large buy order for a security with the intent to cancel it later, just to temporarily nudge up the price.29  In the  carbon offset market, a landowner might be able to pull off a similar scheme by planting trees with  the intent to cut them down soon after generating and selling an offset.   

Before purchasing offsets derived from the storage of carbon in plants or soil, businesses  should assess whether the risk that the carbon will escape is adequately accounted for.  This could  be through the maintenance of a so-called “buffer pool” of offsets that will be retired whenever  necessary to compensate for any carbon’s unanticipated escape, such as in a wildfire.30  The greater  the risk that the GHG reduction undergirding an offset will go “up in smoke” (e.g., because the  associated buffer pool is too small), the lower the offset’s quality.   

Double Counting    

Generally speaking, “double counting” occurs when two companies take full credit for the same GHG reduction.  For example, a project removes 1,000 tCO2e from the atmosphere, but sells  500 offsets to Company A and 580 offsets to Company B, resulting in Company A and Company B  each taking full credit for the removal of the same 80 tCO2e.  The greater the risk that an offset is  being double-counted (e.g., because it comes from an untrustworthy source), the lower the offset’s  quality.31 

3. The Litigation Risks of Carbon Offsets 

The VCM’s lack of oversight, combined with the difficulty in accurately measuring the impact  of carbon offsets, makes it ripe for litigation.   

Securities Claims  

Regulators have taken notice of the growth in VCM, which almost certainly portends 

increased enforcement activity and civil litigation.  Last March, the United States Securities and  Exchange Commission announced a proposed rule on climate-related disclosures that would require  registered companies to divulge details about the offsets they purchase, including about their  sources.32  Should the rule be implemented, it is likely to increase enforcement actions and private  claims against public companies who are alleged to have made materially false or misleading  disclosures about GHG reductions achieved via carbon offsets.  A company that touts a “net zero”  achievement might face fines if it turns out the claim was based on carbon offsets that were not as  effective as claimed. 

The  Commodities  Futures  Trading  Commission  (CFTC),  which  regulates  the  U.S.  derivatives market, including commodity futures, recently signaled that it is considering new rules  relating to VCM.33  On June 2, 2022, the CFTC held a “Voluntary Carbon Markets Convening,”34  during which Commissioner Christy Goldsmith Romero noted “concerns about transparency,  credibility, and greenwashing.”35  The same day, the CFTC announced a Request for Information  (RFI) for public comment on a broad range of issues potentially bearing on adjustments to  regulations to account for climate-related risk.36  Any potential rulemaking by the CFTC has material  implications for legal risk for those who trade in VCM-related derivatives.  For example, commodity  pool operators and brokers may face enforcement actions and private civil liability for fraudulent  solicitation of investments in VCM based upon misstatements about the reliability of related GHG  reductions.   

Consumer Protection Claims   

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) addresses carbon offsets in its non-binding “Green Guides” on environmental marketing.  The Green Guides admonish those who sell offsets to  “employ competent and reliable scientific and accounting methods to properly quantify claimed  emission reductions.” They also require offset buyers to “clearly and prominently disclose if the  carbon offset represents emission reductions that will not occur for two years or longer,” and warn  against offsets that derive from GHG reductions that were already “required by law.”37  Given the  Biden Administration’s increased focus on climate issues, the FTC may soon tighten these guidelines,  and indeed, the Green Guides—last updated in 2012—are expected to undergo review this year.   Companies who mislead consumers by falsely representing the GHG reductions they achieve  through carbon offsets may expect to face enforcement actions and civil lawsuits, similar to the  greenwashing suits dozens of companies have already faced alleging exaggerated claims of eco- friendliness.38  

State regulators have long viewed the carbon offset market as ripe for abuse.  In 2008, 10  states sent a letter to the FTC voicing concern that “[t]he lack of common standards and definitions,  along with the intangible nature of carbon offsets, makes it difficult if not impossible for consumers  to verify that they are receiving what they paid for and creates a significant potential for deceptive claims.”39  As the VCM continues to expand, there are multiple statutes that could be used to impose  liability for misstatements about carbon offsets, including state truth-in-advertising and consumer  protection laws prohibiting false and deceptive practices.40  

Criminal cases are not out of the question.  In a recent case, United States v. Ralston,  prosecutors in the Southern District of New York charged three defendants with an alleged scheme  to  persuade  victims  to invest  millions  of  dollars  in  carbon  credits  and  other  investments  at  significantly  inflated  prices. 

Prosecutors  alleged  the  scheme  involved  false  and  misleading  representations, including that the purported investments would yield short-term, high-yield, no-risk  returns, when in fact the carbon credits were fictitious.41  Two of the defendants pleaded guilty and  the third is awaiting trial.42  VCM sellers who knowingly misrepresent the existence and value of  carbon offsets to purchasers can likewise expect to face potential criminal liability. 

Contract and tort claims  

Given the VCM’s growing role as a store of value, there is likely to be increased litigation 

disputing the proper value of carbon offsets, even where “fraud” is not at issue.  For example, in  Police & Fire Ret. Sys. of City of Detroit v. Watkins, the parties disputed the value and liquidity of a capital  contribution that took the form of “carbon credit entitlements.”43  The defendants claimed the  entitlements had a value of $5 million, while the plaintiff asserted they were speculative and had  “essentially no value” because, among other things, the facility that would generate the offsets had  not yet been built, and the credits had not been registered with any carbon offset programs.44  With  increasing trading and use of carbon credit in financings will come an increase in disputes about their  value. 

Certification organizations that develop standards for quantifying reductions in GHG or  confirm whether projects meet their goals also face litigation risk.  For example, in Aldabe v. Env’t  Servs., Inc., the plaintiff allegedly entered into a contract with a certification body to “validat[e]” and  “verif[y]” that a forest preservation project would satisfy required standards for a carbon credit  program.45  After the parties’ relationship deteriorated, the plaintiff sued for breach of contract,  negligence, and misrepresentation, alleging the failure to give timely notice of anticipated revisions  to applicable standards, along with purported misrepresentations about the supply of validated carbon credits, which would affect the calculation of the price of each offset.46  Although the case  was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds,47 it demonstrates the fraught nature of certifying that a VCM  credit produces a threshold level of GHG reductions.   

Finally, the efficacy of carbon offsets may be disputed in the context of land-use decisions,  where developers and governments must defend environmental impact statements that purport to  show GHG reductions.  In Golden Door Properties, LLC v. County of San Diego, objectors filed petitions  against a county in which they challenged, among other things, the county’s use of GHG mitigation  measures allowing  the  purchase  of  carbon  offsets  from  anywhere  in  the  world  “without  demonstrating that such offsets will be fully enforceable, verifiable, permanent, and additional.”48   The Court of Appeal concluded that the county had failed to adopt a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in  compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because, among other things,  the CAP did not ensure that the offsets were “genuine, verifiable, and enforceable under law that is  at least as strict and enforceable as is California law.”49  Developers and local governments who rely  upon carbon offsets to satisfy required GHG standards for projects can expect to face similar  challenges over the accuracy and reliability of their environmental impact models.   

* * * 

Not all carbon offsets are created equal.  Regulators, investors, and NGOs are increasingly 

scrutinizing the quality of offsets used by companies to meet “net zero” goals.  Businesses must carefully examine what they are buying and ensure they are not getting draw into scams and that their  public statements align with what the offsets are actually likely to achieve.   

* * * 

If you have questions about the issues addressed in this article or would like a copy of any of the 

cited materials, please contact: 

John B. Quinn
Phone: 213-443-3200 

Anthony P. Alden 
Phone: 213-443-3159 

Ian Weiss 
Phone: 212-849-7669 

Danielle Shrader-Frechette 
Phone: 213-443-3710 

August 23, 2022 

To view more memoranda, please visit  To update information or unsubscribe, please email 


1            SABIN    CENTER     FOR    CLIMATE    CHANGE     LAW,    FossielVrij    NL    v.    KLM,      available        at

2   CARBON OFFSET GUIDE, What is a Carbon Offset,


3   Of the roughly 700 publicly listed companies from the Forbes Global 2000 that have announced some form 

of “net zero” target, only around 2% have promised not to use offsets; the rest have either affirmatively stated  an intent to use them or have been silent.  NET ZERO TRACKER, Net Zero Stocktake 2022, at 29 (June 2022),

4            CARBONCREDITS.COM,     Carbon    Offsets     Being    Used    by     Oil     &    Gas     to       Decarbonize

5   MCKINSEY & COMPANY, Putting Carbon Markets to Work On The Path To Net Zero, at 28 (Oct. 2021), on-the-path-to-net-zero.  The VCM stands in contrast to the Compliance (or Mandatory) Carbon Market.   Compliance Markets are created and regulated by mandatory national, regional, or international carbon  reduction regimes, and mandate emission sources to achieve compliance with GHG emission reduction  requirements.  In most cases, compliance programs exist as regional or national cap-and-trade emission trading  schemes, such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) or the European Union Emissions Trading  Scheme (EU ETS).  

6   ECOSYSTEM MARKETPLACE, Markets in Motion, at 8, https://www.ecosystemmarket

7   One metric ton of CO2 equivalent is either one metric ton of CO2 or different amounts of different GHGs 

(usually methane) that contribute as much to global warming as one metric ton of CO2. 

8   MCKINSEY & COMPANY, Putting Carbon Markets To Work On The Path To Net Zero, at 21 (Oct. 2021), available 

at work-on-the-path-to-net-zero; McKinsey & Company, How The Voluntary Carbon Market Can Help Address  Climate Change (Dec. 17, 2020), available at insights/how-the-voluntary-carbon-market-can-help-address-climate-change

9  Ben Elgin, A Top U.S. Seller Of Carbon Offsets Starts Investigating Its Own Projects, BLOOMBERG GREEN (April 5,  2021),    investigating-its-own-projects#xj4y7vzkg.  

10   Doug Struck, Buying Carbon Offsets May Ease Eco-Guilt But Not Global Warming, THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE  MONITOR (April 20, 2010), 

11   MCKINSEY & COMPANY, Putting Carbon Markets To Work On The Path To Net Zero, at 28 (Oct. 2021), available 

at work-on-the-path-to-net-zero

12   Danny Cullenward & David G. Victor, Making Climate Policy Work, at 97 (2021). 

13       Ben   Elgin,   These   Trees   Are   Not   What   They   Seem,    BLOOMBERG    GREEN   (Dec.   9,      2020),  

14         FRONTIER    ECONOMICS,   Fixing   Failing   Carbon   Offset   Markets    (2021),  

15      THE  ECONOMIST,  Offset  Markets  Struggle  In  The  Fact  Of  Surging  Commodity  Prices  (May  19,  2022),

16             Chris    Greenberg,     Carbon     Offsets     Are     A     Scam,     Greenpeace     (Nov.     10,     2021),

17                  (CARBON)PLAN,      Systematic      Over-Crediting      of      Forest      Offsets      (April      29,     2021),

18            Raphael     Calel,     et    al.,     Do    Carbon     Offsets     Offset     Carbon?,     CESIFO      (Oct.          2021),  

19                CARBON       OFFSET        GUIDE,      Additionality, 


20         ECOSYSTEM           MARKETPLACE,        Markets         in         Motion,         at         12         &         A.7,;     THE  ECONOMIST,   Offset    Markets    Struggle   In   The   Fact   Of    Surging   Commodity    Prices   (May    19,                       2022),


21       Ben   Elgin,   These   Trees   Are   Not   What   They   Seem,    BLOOMBERG    GREEN   (Dec.   9,   2020),  

22   Id. 

23   Ben Elgin, A Top U.S. Seller Of Carbon Offsets Starts Investigating Its Own Projects, BLOOMBERG GREEN (Dec.  9,  2020), investigating-its-own-projects#xj4y7vzkg.  

24   Ben Elgin, This Timber Company Sold Millions of Dollars of Useless Carbon Offsets, BLOOMBERG GREEN (March  17, 2022), investigating-its-own-projects#xj4y7vzkg

25   ECOSYSTEM MARKETPLACE, Markets in Motion, at 3, 8, https://www.ecosystemmarket Quintessential examples of high-priced,  high-additionality offset projects are those that use the nascent technology for Direct Air Capture (DAC), which  sucks  CO2  directly  out  of  the  atmosphere  and  stores  it  safely  and  permanently  underground.  See, e.g.,   CLIMEWORKS, Climeworks Makes History With World’s First Commercial Direct Air Capture Plant (May 31, 2017),; Corbin Hiar, Direct  Air  Capture  Of  CO2  Is  Suddenly  A  Carbon  Offset  Option,                                                                                     Scientific   American   (March   10,                                                                                                2021),  

26      THE  ECONOMIST,  Offset  Markets  Struggle  In  The  Fact  Of  Surging  Commodity  Prices  (May  19,  2022),

27   Danny Cullenward & David G. Victor, Making Climate Policy Work, at 92 (2021). 

28   Winston Choi-Schagrin, Wildfires Are Ravaging Forests Set Aside To Soak Up Greenhouse Gases, THE NEW YORK  TIMES (Aug. 23, 2021),

29       Samuel       Becker,       What       Is       Spoofing       In       Trading?,      SOFI       (June       28,          2021),

30           CLIMATE    FOCUS,    Chapter    6:   What    Makes   A    High-Quality    Carbon    Credit?    (Dec.   2021),

31  What should be considered “double counting” can be unclear.  For instance, developments at COP 26 in 

Glasgow have sparked discussion about whether a private company should be allowed to take credit for a GHG  reduction based on an offset from a national government, when that government also counts the same GHG  reduction towards its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) under the Paris Agreement.  Businesses that  purchase offsets should keep an eye on those discussions. 

32   U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Statement On The Enhancement And Standardization of Climate- Related Disclosures For Investors (March 21, 2022), available at climate-statement-032122

33  Gregor Spilker, The Future(s) of Emissions Trading – CPO26 and the Market for Voluntary Carbon Offsets, SEEKING  ALPHA  (February  8,  2022),  available  at trading-cop26-and-market-for-voluntary-carbon-offsets.  

34       CFTC,   CFTC   Announces   Voluntary   Carbon   Markets   Convening   (May    11,   2022),      available       at  

35   CFTC, Opening Statement of Commissioner Christy Goldsmith Romero At The CFTC Voluntary Carbon Markets 

Convening,             Washington             D.C.             (June             2,             2022),             available             at

36   CFTC, CFTC Releases Request for Information on Climate-Related Financial Risk (June 2, 2022), available at   

37   16 C.F.R. § 260.5 (2012). 

38   See, e.g., Anthony Alden et. al., Greenwashing Claims on the Rise: Avoiding Dirty Laundry (March 22, 2021),  available             at avoiding-dirty-laundry/#rootNodeId=1054&pageNumber=1&byNewsType=17096.   

39   Letter from Elliot Burg, Assistant Attorney General, and David A. Zonana, Deputy Attorney General,  Vermont   Attorney   General’s   Office,   to   Federal   Trade   Commission   (Jan.   25,   2008),   available   at  

40   See, e.g., N.Y. General Business Law § 349(a) (“Deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business,  trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state are hereby declared unlawful).   


Security  Company  Charged  With  Multimillion-Dollar  Stock  and  Carbon  Credit  Fraud  (November  20,  2019), credit-fraud; 19-CR-774 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y.) (Criminal Docket).   

42   DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, Operators of  Over       $16              Million International      Boiler        Room         Fraud         Sentenced          to      Years     in                 Prison   (June   30,       2022),


43   No. 08-CV-12582, 2011 WL 5307594 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 3, 2011). 

44   Id. at *1-2. 

45   No. CV 16-11067-MLW, 2017 WL 7035658 (D. Mass. Sept. 20, 2017). 

46   Id. at *5-6.  
47   Id. at *6-9.  
48  50 Cal. App. 5th 467, 496 (2020).   

49  Id. at 512-513.