What the Amazon Tuna Greenwashing Lawsuit Means for Seafood Sourcing Claims

A class-action lawsuit filed on July 31 in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington accuses Amazon of misleading consumers with environmental and sustainability claims on tuna and other seafood products. The suit, brought by law firm Hagens Berman on behalf of two American consumers, alleges that labels reading “dolphin safe,” “sustainably sourced,” “responsibly sourced,” “wild caught,” “traceable,” and “MSC Certified Sustainable Seafood” were unsubstantiated or false, on products sold under 365 by Whole Foods Market, Fishwife, Bumble Bee, Rio Mare, Amazon Grocery, and Chicken of the Sea.

Whatever the outcome, the case is a preview of a pressure every seafood brand and retailer is starting to feel: a sustainability claim or logo printed on a label is no longer treated as sufficient evidence on its own.

What the lawsuit alleges

According to the complaint, the claims at issue rest on foundations the plaintiffs say don’t hold up to scrutiny:

• Traceability gaps at the vessel level – the suit alleges a lack of traceability for some of the supplying fishing vessels, including claims that some vessels switched off their AIS transponders to conceal their location
• Undisclosed origin and method – the complaint states that Amazon did not disclose the specific country of origin, source fishery, or catch method for the products named
• Limited regulatory coverage – the suit points out that the US Seafood Import Monitoring Program (SIMP) currently requires catch documentation for only 13 species groups, representing roughly 40% of US seafood imports, and that SIMP’s traceability requirements end at the border even for species it does cover
• Certification limits – the complaint characterizes the MSC certification as potentially misleading, alleging a fishery can retain certification while still using methods, such as fish aggregating devices, associated with bycatch of non-target species
• Label scope – the suit notes that a “dolphin safe” label, as defined by the Earth Island Institute, does not itself certify broader environmental sustainability or bycatch of non-dolphin species

The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages and restitution under Washington consumer protection law. These are allegations before the court, not findings – but the specific mechanisms named (AIS gaps, transshipment blind spots, certification scope) are the same ones traceability and compliance teams have been raising for years.

Why a logo is no longer treated as proof

This case lands at a moment when the industry’s tolerance for unverified claims is already shifting. In June, retailer Lidl announced it would stop allowing logos like Dolphin Safe and FAD Free on its own-brand products from September 27, citing a need to better protect consumers from misleading environmental claims. Procurement teams at major retailers increasingly ask for audit-ready documentation before onboarding a supplier, not a certificate that confirms a standard was met at some point in the past.

The distinction the lawsuit draws is the one that matters here: a certification like MSC confirms a fishery or a chain-of-custody system meets a defined standard. It does not, by itself, confirm that a specific vessel operated in an authorized zone on a specific trip, or that a specific batch on a specific shelf is the one the certificate actually covers. A label is a claim about a category. A buyer, a regulator, or a court asking “prove it for this can” is asking a different question entirely.

Book a demo

Why AIS gaps are the detail worth paying attention to

Of everything named in the complaint, the allegation about vessels switching off AIS transponders is the one traceability teams should look at most closely. AIS is one of two primary satellite tracking systems (alongside VMS) used to verify that a vessel fished where and how it claimed to. A gap in that record isn’t proof of wrongdoing on its own – coverage genuinely drops out at sea – but a system that can’t distinguish a coverage gap from a concealment attempt, or that has no record to check at all, leaves a brand with no way to answer the question when it’s asked.

The same applies to transshipment. Every point where catch moves from a fishing vessel to a carrier is a point where a paper-based or fragmented digital record can lose the thread back to the original vessel – which is precisely the kind of gap the lawsuit alleges.

What this means for brands and retailers, whether or not you were named

A few things are true regardless of how this specific case resolves:

1. Supplier declarations are not evidence. A claim passed down the chain from a supplier is exactly the kind of assurance this lawsuit challenges. It’s an assertion, not a documented event.
2. A certificate is one data point, not the whole record. MSC, ASC, and similar certifications matter, but they confirm a system or fishery meets a standard – they don’t independently confirm the origin of the specific product in front of a buyer or a court.
3. The gap is at the first mile. Every failure mode named in the complaint – vessel authorization, AIS continuity, transshipment custody – originates at sea, before the product reaches a processor. Traceability systems that start at processing never capture it.
4. This is a market-access question now, not only a legal one. Retailers were already tightening supplier requirements before this suit was filed. A brand that can’t produce verifiable, batch-level evidence when asked risks losing the listing before a regulator or a plaintiff ever gets involved.

How SmarTuna addresses the exact gaps this lawsuit describes

SmarTuna is built around the specific weak points this case turns on – not as a response to the lawsuit, but because they’re the structural gaps first-mile traceability exists to close:

• Real-time vessel monitoring via satellite VMS and AIS, so a gap in coverage is visible and distinguishable from a missing record altogether
• A unique Raw Material ID assigned at port discharge, linking a batch to the vessel and trip that produced it before processing begins
• Automated checks against 15+ regulatory and certification databases, including RFMO registries, ISSF PVR, MSC Chain of Custody, and IUU blacklists
• Proof points that tie a specific certification to a specific batch, rather than to a brand or supplier in general
• Digital Product Passports accessible via product code, so a claim printed on a label resolves to the verified record behind it
• Full GDST compatibility and GS1 EPCIS integration, so the same record can be shared with retailers, auditors, and regulators without being rebuilt for each one

A sustainability claim that can be traced to a specific vessel, trip, and batch is a different kind of claim than one resting on a logo alone. If your team is reviewing what stands behind the sourcing claims on your own products, explore SmarTuna’s solutions or schedule a demonstration to see how first-mile traceability applies to your supply chain.