The Green Claims Directive – a legal update on developments, evolving enforcement, and overview of local regulations and judgments in selected jurisdictions

Current legal tools

To date Austria does not have specific laws for greenwashing, but there is a body of case law dating back as early as 1994. Green claims are assessed under the rules prohibiting misleading claims about the characteristics or qualities of a product or service, which are laid down in the Austrian Unfair Competition Act (UWG).

In Austria, green claims are subject to strict examination as they are assumed to be particularly relevant for purchasing decisions and may only be used if they are objectively and verifiably correct. If the claim, such as the terms “organic” or “natural”, bears the risk of being misunderstood by consumers, the advertiser must provide more detailed information, e.g., in the form of a disclaimer, or refrain from using the claim. Moreover, environmental certificates may only be used if the certificate has been issued and the certification is still valid, as market participants expect such certificates to have been issued by a neutral third party based on objective criteria.

Enforcement

While there is some private enforcement by competitors, the main enforcement driver are consumer associations, in particular the Verein für Konsumenteninformation (VKI).

The VKI has launched its so-called “Greenwashing-Check”, which evaluates green claims that are reported by consumers or which come to its attention via other channels. Usually the VKI will give the advertiser the chance to comment on the claim and submit substantiating evidence. If the statement cannot be substantiated or consumers are likely to be misled by its vagueness or inaccuracy, the VKI publishes the assessment on its website. For example, the VKI has identified the following as greenwashing:

• the claim “environmentally neutral” as the environmental footprint of a product can never be completely neutral;
• environmental certificates if the certification was neither transparent nor objective,
• the claim “nature-based” as nature-based products are not necessarily environmentally friendly,
• the equalization of the terms “regionality” and “sustainability” as a regional product is not automatically sustainable and
• plastic packaging with the appearance and feel of paper.

The VKI also successfully brought the following cases to court:

In June 2022, the VKI sued an Austrian brewery for advertising the brewing of beer as CO² neutral. The disputed centred around the question if the malting, which created CO² emissions, was part of the brewing process. The court found the claims to be misleading, because the brewery had explicitly described malting as part of the brewing process on its website.

In September 2023, the VKI was successful in its lawsuit against an airline for advertising flights as CO²-neutral using SAF (sustainable aviation fuel), because only a very small portion of the aviation fuel consisted of SAF. This was only disclosed on the website, which the court found insufficient to avoid misleading consumers.

So far, the Belgian government has not published the bill that will transpose the Empowering Consumers on the Green Transition Directive (EmpCo Directive) and the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD). The Directives must be transposed into national law by 27 March 2026, and it is expected that the draft bill will be published soon and discussed in the national parliament.

Current legal tools

Federal Public Service Economy guidelines

Awaiting the adoption of the bill, the Federal Public Service Economy (FPS Economy) issued guidelines in April 2024 with its views on how greenwashing can be tackled in Belgium. The guidelines are published on the website of the Federal Public Service (www.economie.be) and are available in Dutch and in French.

In its guidelines, the FPS Economy states the prohibition of greenwashing claims such as the use of general terms like “non-polluting”, “good for the planet”, “ecological”, “nature-friendly”, “sustainable”, “protects the environment”, etc. The use of a symbol or colour that clearly evokes nature on the packaging of a household product that in fact has no or only a minimally positive effect on the environment is also prohibited, as is the use of a self-declared environmental label or logo that makes it look like an official label certified by a competent and independent body. Also, the FPS Economy states in its guidelines that an unlawful greenwashing claim has been made when the advertiser cannot substantiate the environmental claim with appropriate and relevant scientific evidence.

Indeed the FPS Economy seems to apply the stricter rules of the EmpCo Directive even though the Directive has not yet been transposed. The FPS Economy guidelines should, however, be disregarded by the courts if they are stricter than what the law currently provides: the courts must apply the law as it is and should not follow any guidelines of the administration that do not comply with the law.

Book VI of the Code of Economic Law

The current law that applies to greenwashing in Belgium is Book VI of the Code of Economic Law that sets out the rules for misleading and comparative advertising. Several sections of Book VI of the Code of Economic Law transpose the UCPD No. 2005/29/EC of 11 May 2005.

In line with the Directive, unfair commercial practices are prohibited. Misleading commercial practices are examples of forbidden, unfair commercial practices. A misleading advertisement, for instance, will be prohibited if the following statutory requirements are met:

• the ad contains false information and is therefore untruthful, or the ad deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer it in any way, including overall presentation
• in either case, causes or is likely to cause the consumer to take a transactional decision that they would not have taken otherwise.

Rulings from the courts

The Belgian courts have not rendered many decisions in which the principles of misleading advertising have been applied in relation to environmental or sustainability claims. However, in a leading decision of 28 June 2019, the Brussels Court of Appeal ruled on the environmental claims made by Ecover, which produces environmentally friendly dishwashing liquids. Ecover claimed that the “Ocean Bottle” housing its dishwashing liquid was made from a plastic containing 50% content recovered from the ocean, and that the Ocean Bottle contained 15% less plastic than regular dishwashing liquid bottles.

Its competitor, Werner & Mertz, believed that Ecover was misleading consumers because claims about the plastic were incorrect – hence Werner & Mertz brought the case before the court.

With regard to the origin of the plastic – supposedly 50% content recovered from the ocean – the court found that even if the Ocean Bottle was made from plastic collected on the beach rather than taken directly from the ocean, there was still no misleading advertising and no unfair market practice. For the consumer, it makes little difference whether the plastic comes from the ocean or is collected on the beach: in both cases, the consumer knows that it is relatively environmentally friendly packaging, and the precise origin (beach or ocean) will not influence a consumer’s decision about a possible purchase. Since the transactional decision of the consumer is not affected by the precise origin of the plastic, the claim that 50% of the plastic was recovered from the ocean, while in reality some of it was collected from the beach, did not constitute misleading advertising.

On the second point of the claim – 15% less plastic – Werner & Mertz argued that this was incorrect because an average bottle for dishwashing liquid weighed 25 grams and the Ocean Bottle weighed 26 grams, so it seemingly consisted of more plastic, not less. Surprisingly, the court rejected the claim because the statement “15% less plastic” referred to the smooth surface of the bottle, which required less plastic than a traditional, ribbed bottle. The claim was therefore correct, according to the court, and the advertisement did not constitute misleading commercial practice.

Rulings from the Jury for Ethical Practices in Advertising

While there is not much case law from the regular courts about greenwashing, there are several decisions from the Jury for Ethical Practices in Advertising (JEP), often more critical towards the advertisers.

Consumers who object to exaggerated or incorrect environmental claims can file a complaint with the JEP. The JEP has drawn up an environmental advertising code; it also applies the Code of the International Chamber of Commerce which contains a chapter on environmental claims. Both codes can be found here in Dutch and in French.

For example, the JEP evaluated the following advertisement from Brussels Airlines: “Join us on our way to respectful flying”, featuring a picture of a parent and a child watching an aeroplane in the sky. The JEP found that the slogan was suggesting that flying did not harm the environment in general, which is incorrect. The JEP stated that the claim was absolute and missed nuance, and was therefore misleading consumers. Brussels Airlines was ordered to stop using the advertisement (JEP decision of 26 February 2024).

In another decision, the JEP had to decide on a LinkedIn post by the Belgian marketing agency, Planet B, which promoted the use of computer-generated images (CGIs). According to Planet B, using CGIs in advertising campaigns was better than using images of real objects because with CGIs there was “zero waste”, opening the way to “sustainable marketing”.

The JEP did not agree. The wording used in the LinkedIn post was too broad, according to the JEP. Stating that marketing campaigns can be “zero waste” and “sustainable” is not supported by any evidence. Perhaps limited aspects of a marketing campaign could be “zero waste” and “sustainable”, but overall, there was no evidence that a marketing campaign developed by Planet B would be neutral to the environment. Therefore, the JEP ordered Planet B to stop using the advertisement (JEP decision of 24 June 2024).

More recently, the JEP ordered a producer of fireplaces to stop using advertising in which its fireplaces were presented as environmentally friendly and sustainable. The JEP ruled that an advertiser may highlight certain characteristics of their products or services, and that they may explain why those characteristics have benefits for the environment; by stating that their fireplaces were environmentally friendly and sustainable in general, however, this advertiser went too far because heating a house by burning wood in a fireplace does have a negative impact on the environment  (JEP decision of 27 January 2025).

Greenwashing is sanctioned in France on the basis of the prohibition of misleading commercial practices, as transposed from the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (2005/29/CE – UCPD) as amended.

In addition to this general prohibition, specific Green Claims are prohibited per se or are strictly regulated:

• prohibition of the terms “biodegradable”, “environmentally friendly” or any other equivalent terms on a product or packaging
• obligation to specify the percentage of recycled materials actually incorporated when referring to the recycled nature of a product
• strict limitation of carbon neutrality claims, etc.

Current legal tools

Soft law

The Directorate-General for Competition Policy, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control (DGCCRF) published a useful guide on Green Claims, updated in 2023, specifying conditions for the use of specific Green Claims such as “organic”, “sustainable”, “natural”, etc.

Sanctions on the grounds of the general prohibition of misleading commercial practices

Misleading commercial practices are punishable by 2 years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to EUR 300,000 for natural persons. This maximum amount is increased to EUR 1.5 million for legal entities.

Where the offence has been committed online, the maximum penalties are increased to 5 years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to EUR 750,000 for natural persons or EUR 3.75 million for legal entities.

In any case of greenwashing, the amount of the fine may be increased in proportion to the benefits derived from the offence to:

• 10% of the average annual turnover, calculated on the basis of the last three annual turnovers known at the date of the facts
• 80% of the expenditure incurred in carrying out the advertising or practice constituting the offence.

Alongside the classic criminal proceedings route, with the consent of the public prosecutor the economic administration can directly propose a criminal settlement to the company, and thus issue a financial penalty of up to the maximum amounts mentioned above.

In case of non-compliance, the French administration can also issue injunctions with “name and shame” and daily penalty payments with sanctions (last increased in June 2025).

Sanctions in the case of per se Green Claims prohibitions or limitations

Administrative fines of up to EUR 3,000 for natural persons or EUR 15,000 for legal entities can be issued directly by the French administration. These maximum amounts can be multiplied by the number of products/consumers concerned.

As regards carbon neutrality claims, the maximum administrative fine that the French administration can impose is EUR 20,000 for natural persons or EUR 100,000 for legal entities. These amounts may be increased to the total amount of the expenditure devoted to the illegal operation.

Investigations and implementation

The DGCCRF carries out regular investigations. It recently observed that about one third of Green Claims made in France are misleading. Below are some examples of recent sanctions:

• July 2025: criminal settlement with the name and shame of Shein – a penalty of EUR 40 million for misleading commercial practices regarding price promotions and greenwashing (failure to substantiate Green Claims made online, in particular presenting itself as a responsible company that would limit its environmental impact by reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 25%)
• August 2025: injunction against a bedding company, notably regarding unjustified “natural” and “ecologic” claims.

Some French consumer associations are very active in reporting infringements:

• June 2025: UFC-Que Choisir submitted a case to the courts against Nestlé Waters to request the withdrawal of Perrier’s “natural mineral waters” claims, filing a complaint with the public prosecutor.

Note that a greenwashing case regarding carbon neutrality claims is currently ongoing before the Paris Judicial Court against TotalEnergies following a joint summons by several environmental protection associations, notably Greenpeace France.

Although Hungary does not have detailed regulation tackling greenwashing specifically, the UCP Act (i.e. the Hungarian implementation of the EU’s UCPD) lists environmental impact as one of the material characteristics of products. This means that there is already a concrete legal basis to scrutinise Green Claims under the general misleading communication framework.

Current legal tools

The Hungarian Competition Authority (HCA) has been very active in the fight against greenwashing for many years.

Soft law guidance

The HCA was one of the first European authorities to raise public awareness of greenwashing, launching a consumer-focused campaign in 2016. In 2020, it published detailed guidance on green marketing, offering practical examples to help businesses ensure that their environmental claims comply with legal requirements.

Market analysis

In 2022, the HCA launched a market analysis examining the use of Green Claims in Hungary. As part of this market analysis, the HCA also conducted a sweep, examining 60 domestic websites to assess the clarity and verifiability of environmental claims. The findings, published in January 2024, revealed that many green messages were vague or misleading, and that consumers often lacked clear understanding of the claims used. Based on these results, the HCA made targeted recommendations: it advised businesses to perform lifecycle analyses to support their environmental claims and called on the legislator to establish a multi-level, state-regulated sustainability labelling system.

Enforcement

In April 2024, the HCA issued a major greenwashing decision, finding that one of Hungary’s largest cup return companies had misled consumers about the environmental impact of its return system. In August 2024, the HCA launched three new investigations into claims regarding the recyclability and recycled nature of soft drink packaging.

As to the future, the HCA will likely maintain its active stance, thus more investigations into green claims can be expected.

In Ireland, regulators are already active in tackling misleading environmental – and wider sustainability – claims, even before implementation of the EU’s Directives specifically regulating such claims. Enforcement is currently grounded in general consumer protection and advertising laws, but expectations are clearly rising – and businesses may not want to wait for new legislation before tightening compliance.

Current legal tools

The Consumer Protection Act 2007, as amended by the Consumer Rights Act 2022, prohibits misleading commercial practices, including false or unsubstantiated Green Claims. The Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (CCPC) enforces these rules and has shown increasing interest in sustainability-linked marketing. While enforcement has so far focused on guidance and informal action, the legal framework allows for compliance notices, undertakings and even criminal prosecution in serious cases.

Advertising standards add another layer. The Advertising Standards Authority for Ireland (ASAI) applies its Code of Standards for Advertising and Marketing Communications to all commercial communications, including environmental claims. In May 2023, the ASAI issued updated guidance that echoes EU-level concerns – urging businesses to avoid vague terms like “eco-friendly” or “green” unless clearly defined and backed by robust evidence.

Future developments

Forthcoming EU legislation will significantly raise the bar. By 27 September 2026, Ireland will need to transpose the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive (EmpCo Directive), which introduces a ban on generic environmental claims (e.g. “sustainable”, “climate friendly”) unless they are based on recognised excellent environmental performance relevant to the claim. The proposed Green Claims Directive (GCD), if adopted, will go further by requiring third party verification and substantiation of voluntary environmental claims, including detailed information on the methodology, lifecycle impacts and whether or not the claim relies on carbon offsetting – a step change from current practice.

Despite the current lack of bespoke greenwashing rules in Ireland, the message from regulators seems clear: environmental claims must already meet high standards of clarity and substantiation. Companies relying on broad, unverifiable claims may therefore be taking legal and reputational risks.

Although Norway is not part of the EU, Norway has had access to the EU’s internal market through the EEA Agreement since 1994. Since the Agreement entered into force, Norway has implemented about 70% of the EU’s legislation through the Agreement.

Current legal tools

The Norwegian Marketing Control Act (MCA) consists of a combination of country-specific provisions and the provisions of the EU’s Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD).

The MCA does not contain provisions regulating the use of Green Claims in marketing specifically. The requirements for use of Green Claims in marketing must instead be determined based on the general provisions of the Act. Particularly relevant is the prohibition of unfair commercial practices and the requirement to substantiate claims, both familiar from the UCPD.

Despite the lack of specialised provisions for Green Claims, the Norwegian MCA and Norwegian practice impose strict requirements for the use of Green Claims. In other words, there will still be Norwegian provisions well-suited to respond to greenwashing in Norway should the EU’s Green Claims Directive (GCD) not be implemented fully or in part.

Norwegian marketing law is characterised by having relatively little case law, particularly regarding marketing towards consumers. There is, however, extensive administrative practice from the Norwegian Consumer Authority and the Norwegian Market Council, including practice regarding Green Claims specifically. Naturally, case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is also relevant when interpreting the Norwegian marketing provisions originating from the UCPD.

Further, the Norwegian Consumer Authority is working closely with other European consumer authorities through the Consumer Protection Cooperation Network. Perhaps best known is the case against Zalando regarding misleading sustainability claims, which was initiated by the Norwegian Consumer Authority. In 2024, the case resulted in Zalando committing to changing its practice throughout the EU/EEA area.

The Norwegian Consumer Authority has also developed guidance on sustainability claims used for marketing purposes. Although the guidance has no formal legal force, it is nevertheless a valuable tool for companies to familiarise themselves with Norwegian requirements and how the Norwegian Consumer Authority will enforce the use of Green Claims in marketing.

As of August 2025, apart from provisions regulating the use of “bio” or “eco” product labels, there are no specific laws in Poland regulating Green Claims or greenwashing. However, changes are on the horizon.

Current legal tools

Even though no specific laws have been adopted and none will come into force for some time, the enforcement of greenwashing claims has already started based on general prohibition of misleading advertising. The Polish Consumer Authority (UOKiK) announced in 2023 that proceedings had been launched in relation to the practices of various entities in the fashion, cosmetics and e-commerce sectors. Most recently, at the end of July 2025, the UOKiK announced that it had pressed greenwashing charges against four major companies: three from the logistics/transport sector plus Poland’s largest online marketplace, Allegro.

The proceedings mainly concern marketing claims used to promote deliveries to parcel lockers by suggesting that they are more eco-friendly than home delivery, and that deliveries are made using a “green fleet” that reduces CO₂ emissions or result in zero-emission e-commerce.

Apart from enforcement by the UOKiK and the proposed implementation of new EU Directives, entities operating in Poland may adopt as guidelines of proper “green advertising” the provisions of the Advertising Code of Ethics on environmental advertising published by the Advertising Council, a Polish self-regulating organisation with numerous international companies as members. Documents issued by the Advertising Council are not universally binding, but may serve as a code of good practice in advertising activities in Poland.

What is important from a practical perspective is that any company running misleading advertising campaigns aimed at consumers may face a fine by the UOKiK of up to 10% of its turnover, while managers who intentionally allow an infringement may be fined up to PLN 2 million (approx. EUR 470,000).

Future developments

At the beginning of August 2025, the Polish government confirmed that work has started on implementation of the Empowering Consumers on the Green Transition Directive (EmpCo Directive) and the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD). The draft of the new law has not yet been made public; however, according to the government website, there are no plans to diverge from the wording of the Directives. It is planned to adopt the new law in the first quarter of 2026.

Greenwashing has come under increasing scrutiny in Spain. While the Spanish legislators are still in the process of developing a specific legal framework to combat greenwashing, existing legislation and new proposals are shaping a more transparent and accountable landscape for both businesses and consumers.

Current legal tools  

General Advertising Act and Unfair Competition Act

Greenwashing in Spain has mainly been addressed under general legislation – primarily through the General Advertising Act and the Unfair Competition Act.

These laws establish that any advertising likely to mislead the public (i.e. advertising that conveys a message not aligned with reality) is considered unlawful. These misleading statements include environmental claims that are vague, unsubstantiated or deceptive. Therefore, any statement that could mislead consumers regarding a product’s ecological impact can be sanctioned.

Self-regulation and industry codes

Spain has promoted self-regulation in environmental advertising since:

• 2007, with calls for responsible communication on climate change and the introduction of its first code of good practices for environmental advertising
• 2009, when a Code for Environmental Advertising was created in collaboration with ECODES and the Ministry for the Ecological Transition and the Demographic Challenge.

Although the 2009 Code is now outdated, it led to the creation of the Observatory for Responsible Advertising in the Face of Climate Change, which researches market practices and issues recommendations to combat greenwashing. This Observatory is expected to prompt new codes of good practice and greater integration of these standards into Spanish advertising regulation.

In addition, organisations like Autocontrol, the Spanish self-regulatory advertising body, play a key role. While Autocontrol has not issued a specific code for Green Claims, it enforces general principles of truthfulness and relevance in advertising and provides an Advertising Jury to resolve disputes.

Financial sector oversight

The Spanish National Securities Market Commission (CNMV) continues to play a central role in combating greenwashing in Spain’s financial sector by promoting a regulatory framework for sustainable finance that emphasises clarity, reliability and comparability of information.

Through its Activity Plans, the CNMV aims to ensure that companies and investors can make informed decisions and that capital flows are directed toward genuinely sustainable economic activities. The CNMV actively contributes to the implementation of the European Commission’s Action Plan on Financing Sustainable Growth and the updated Strategy for Financing the Transition to a Sustainable Economy.

Education

The Spanish government has also attempted to address greenwashing through education.

It launched the Action Plan for Environmental Education for Sustainability (PAEAS) 2021-2025, which integrates environmental education and communication as cross-cutting tools in public policy, promoting transparency and fostering alliances with media and regulatory bodies to ensure responsible, accurate and verifiable environmental messaging. Specifically, collaborations have been established with the national public broadcaster, RTVE, and other public media to develop annual programming focused on environmental education and sustainability.

Moreover, Organic Law 3/2020, dated 29 December (which amends Organic Law 2/2006, dated May 3) on Education, for the first time includes explicit references to “Education for Sustainable Development and Education for Global Citizenship”, as outlined in the Spanish government’s 2030 Agenda.

Future developments

A new law on sustainable consumption

At the end of July 2025, the Spanish Council of Ministers granted initial approval to the Law on Sustainable Consumption (Anteproyecto de Ley de Consumo Sostenible) regarding the transposition of the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive (EmpCo Directive) and EU Directive 2024/1799 on the Repair of Goods (“Directive on the Repair of Goods”).

The draft law, which directly addresses greenwashing and promotes responsible consumption, is currently in the early stages of its legislative process, with the consultation period ending on 31 August. However, this upcoming Law on Sustainable Consumption will:

• include a legal definition of greenwashing as an unfair commercial practice
• strengthen the right to clear, transparent and truthful information about products (as required by the EmpCo Directive): the draft law aims to address the current lack of information consumers receive in relation to the sustainability of the products and services they consume, particularly regarding environmental characteristics, product lifespan and repairability. Additionally, it also targets misleading, vague or unsubstantiated environmental claims and the use of sustainability labels that are not always transparent or truthful, such as “eco”, “green”, or “carbon-neutral”
• ensure an effective right to repair (as required by the Directive on the Repair of Goods): moreover, the law aims to promote systematic repairs, even beyond the legal guarantee period, and at a reasonable cost 
• prohibit fake eco-labels not based on official certifications
• include public access to proof supporting any environmental claim.

In addition, and beyond the requirements set by the EU directives, the Spanish government intends to address additional issues including:

• limiting the resale prices of tickets for public events and recreational activities 
• introducing mandatory information requirements when the content of a pre-packaged consumer product is reduced
• prohibiting advertising for fossil fuels, as well as, in certain cases, commercial communications related to products or transport services powered exclusively by fossil fuels. 

In summary, Spain is on the verge of a major regulatory overhaul in the fight against greenwashing. The forthcoming Law on Sustainable Consumption will introduce a framework for environmental claims, moving beyond the current reliance on general advertising and competition law.  This will require companies to adopt a far more rigorous, transparent and evidence-based approach to environmental communication.

Switzerland is not part of the EU and therefore the Green Claims Directive (GCD) is not directly applicable in Switzerland. However, Swiss companies that provide products or services to customers within the EU fall under its scope.

Current legal tools

When acting in Switzerland, Swiss law requires truthful and clear marketing of any environmental or climate-related claim. Since 1 January 2025, Art. 3 para. 1 let. x of the Swiss Federal Act against Unfair Competition (UCA) explicitly prohibits claims on the environmental impact that cannot be substantiated by objective, verifiable evidence. Under this rule, the burden of proof lies with the advertiser, and anyone making Green Claims must be able to back them up with evidence.

The Federal Office for the Environment is shortly expected to publish implementation guidelines (Vollzugshilfe) on complying with this rule under let. x UCA. These will provide orientation for advertisers on how to be compliant with Art. 3 para. 1 let. x UCA when advertising with Green Claims.

In the interim, advertisers may rely on the Guideline on Commercial Communications with Environmental References and Arguments issued by the Swiss Fairness Commission, a self-regulatory body of the advertising industry, when making Green Claims. Under this Guideline, Green Claims are permitted if they are clear and true.

A claim is considered clear if:

• the Green Claim specifies what it refers to
• the communication explains which measures led to the claim (e.g. emission reduction)
• the promoted efforts go beyond legal or industry standards
• it is clear whether the claim relates to current circumstances or future initiatives.

A claim is considered true if the advertiser can substantiate its accuracy with objective, verifiable evidence. The Guideline clarifies what this means for frequently used Green Claims. For example, “CO₂ neutral” should only be used if the company is taking measures to completely avoid or offset emissions.

The UK has no explicit law prohibiting greenwashing; its approach to regulating Green Claims – and wider sustainability claims – in advertising is a mix of regulatory codes and general consumer protection laws. This approach has recently been tightened, with the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act (DMCCA) coming into force on 6 April 2025.

The DMCCA gives the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) direct powers to enforce consumer protection laws, including against misleading Green Claims. Sanctions include fines of up to the greater of £300,000 or 10% of global turnover, and action against directors.

Current legal tools

Advertising is primarily regulated through self-regulatory codes: the CAP Code and the BCAP Code, updated in 2024 to include specific sections on environmental claims (section 11 and section 9, respectively). These are enforced by the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA), which investigates complaints from individuals, businesses and NGOs. ASA rulings are not legally binding but carry reputational impact, and persistent non-compliance can be referred to Trading Standards for legal enforcement. The ASA has also published specific guidance on its position on environmental claims (updated June 2023).

Legislative framework

The DMCCA replaces the previous Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUT) as the main legislative instrument governing B2C marketing. It prohibits misleading actions and omissions, and breaches of professional diligence. The CMA can issue infringement notices, accept undertakings and require compensation. In April 2025, the CMA issued guidance on its enforcement position and on unfair business practices under the DMCCA.

Business-to-business (B2B) advertising remains governed by the Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008, which prohibit misleading and comparative claims.

Future developments

Although the DMCCA strengthens enforcement, consumer rights of redress for misleading practices remain governed by CPUT until new regulations are published.

During the DMCCA’s consultation phase, several stakeholders proposed adding greenwashing to the list of automatically banned practices. While this was not adopted, the DMCCA allows expansion of the banned practices list via secondary legislation.

Considerations for businesses

To ensure compliance, businesses could:

• substantiate all environmental claims with robust, verifiable evidence
• avoid vague or absolute language unless fully justified
• audit supply chain statements to ensure accuracy with client-facing claims
• monitor ASA/CMA rulings for evolving standards and enforcement trends
• train teams on compliance.

The CMA’s Green Claims Code and checklist offer practical guidance.

Current legal tools

In the Italian legal system, environmental claims are usually regulated by the Consumer Code, which implements the EU’s Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD), and by the Code of Communication issued by the Self-Regulatory Institute for Advertising, requiring that advertising claiming or suggesting environmental or ecological benefits must be based on truthful, pertinent and scientifically verifiable evidence. Any green claims shall be compliant with the principles contained therein, to avoid the risk of engaging in unfair commercial practices or misleading marketing communications.

Over the years, the Italian Competition Authority (Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato or AGCM), which is an independent governmental entity in charge of both ensuring the protection of competition and the market, and fighting unfair business activities (including misleading and comparative advertising), has set up some general requirements with which green claims must comply, stating that environmental claims “must report the environmental benefits of the product in a timely and unambiguous way, be scientifically verifiable and properly expressed”, so that “a correct environmental claim should convey information adequately documented, scientifically ‘verifiable’ and limited to specific aspects that can be verified in a comparative key with respect to homogeneous products”.

Greenwashing comes at a price

In August this year, the AGCM issued a EUR 1 million fine to a large online platform which had disseminated a series of generic and misleading environmental and sustainability claims on its website, such as “promoting a circular future” and “focusing on quality rather than quantity”.

In particular, the regulator found that the claims were not substantiated with clear and complete information on the actual use of sustainable materials in the production of clothing or on the environmental impact of production methods. Claims around the objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. decarbonisation by 2050) were also considered misleading, as the online platform failed to provide any details as to concrete methods or data for achieving them.

The AGCM considered that these practices were likely to unduly influence the economic choices of consumers – in particular the youngest – by encouraging excessive purchases and rapid consumption of clothing (fast fashion), with consequent increases in pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, release of microplastics and non-biodegradable textile waste. In addition, the use of environmental claims had contributed to generating a significant economic advantage for the online platform, exploiting the environmental sensitivity of consumers.

In the Netherlands, a combination of statutory provisions, regulatory guidance and self-regulatory mechanisms currently governs the use of environmental claims. This section outlines the key instruments in place and anticipated legislative developments.

Current legal tools

At present, the provisions set out in the Dutch Civil Code concerning unfair commercial practices serve as the primary legal basis for addressing misleading environmental claims. The Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) is responsible for monitoring compliance with these provisions.

In addition, the ACM published its Guidelines on Sustainability Claims in early 2021, with revisions in 2023. These guidelines aim to safeguard consumer trust in environmental claims, aligning with the objectives of both relevant EU Directives – the Empowering Consumers on the Green Transition Directive (EmpCo Directive) and the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD). Although the ACM has intensified its supervision of sustainability claims in recent years, its enforcement policy has not yet resulted in the imposition of sanctions. 1  Nevertheless, in 2022 the ACM investigated sustainability claims made by six companies in the fashion sector. It launched its own investigations into H&M and Decathlon, as both are based in the Netherlands and therefore fall under Dutch jurisdiction. These investigations resulted in formal commitment decisions, in which the companies pledged to modify or remove specific sustainability claims. 2 3  The remaining four companies are based abroad, and the ACM therefore requested the relevant foreign regulators to take action. This request was included in the joint action taken by the European supervisory authorities against Zalando, which also resulted in formal commitments to amend or remove claims.

Misleading environmental claims are also addressed through self-regulation within the advertising sector. Advertising communications containing environmental claims are regularly submitted for review to the Dutch Advertising Code Committee. These assessments are based on the Code for Sustainability Advertising, a code that is derived from the statutory provisions relating to unfair commercial practices.

While civil courts have thus far played a limited role in tackling misleading environmental claims, the Amsterdam District Court issued a notable judgement in late 2024 concerning the unlawfulness of an advertising statement made by KLM. In its reasoning, the court relied not only on the rules on unfair commercial practices under the Dutch Civil Code – interpreted in light of the European Commission’s guidance – but also on the aforementioned regulatory sources.

Future developments 

The EmpCo Directive has been formally adopted. As a result of this new legislation, the Dutch Civil Code will be amended to include, among other things, a prohibition on generic environmental claims such as “environmentally friendly”, “green” and “ecological.” Although the implementation process has commenced in the Netherlands 4 , a letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs dated September 2025 indicates that the transposition is currently behind schedule. 5

The proposed Green Claims Directive, if adopted, would go further by introducing a mandatory requirement for prior third-party verification of environmental claims. In addition, the Directive sets out minimum standards for the substantiation and communication of environmental claims and sustainability labels. For instance, substantiation must be based on recognised scientific evidence. These measures are expected to facilitate enforcement practices across Member States. 6

In Germany, interest in environment-related claims (“Green Claims”) has risen in recent years. As there is no Green Claims-specific statute, such claims are generally assessed under the rules on misleading advertising in the German Unfair Competition Act (Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb, “UWG”), which implements the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD). Consumer, environmental and fair competition protection associations have become increasingly active, and EU-level reforms will tighten the legal framework further. In this context, the legislative process for implementing the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive (2024/825 – EmpCo Directive) into the UWG is progressing.

Current legal tools

Green Claims are assessed under the UWG’s general misleading advertising provisions, as interpreted by extensive German case law that reaches back to the late 1980s and has accelerated in recent years.

Due to the rising relevance of green product/company characteristics for consumers, and thus an increased risk of misleading, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has set particularly strict requirements for the accuracy, clarity and unambiguity of green advertising (the so-called “principle of strictness”). In a landmark judgement of 27 June 2024 on the claim “climate neutral,” the BGH held that the term is ambiguous and that advertisers must clarify in the advertisement itself whether climate neutrality is achieved through actual emission reductions or via offsetting; according to the BGH, merely referring consumers to a website via a link or a QR code would not be sufficient to “cure” an actively misleading message.

Enforcement typically involves injunctions (cease-and-desist), corrective measures and – where on-pack claims are affected – potential recalls, alongside reputational risk due to media attention.

Environment/consumer/fair competition protection associations such as Deutsche Umwelthilfe, Verbraucherzentrale or Wettbewerbszentrale play a leading role in practice and have brought many (court) claims to achieve legal certainty for Green Claims. Private enforcement by competitors has now also started to increase. German authorities are not typically responsible for prosecuting misleading advertising. However, in cross-border consumer protection, the German Federal Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt) may be requested by the competent authorities of another EU Member State to take action against misleading environmental claims made by a company based in Germany, on the basis of European CPC Regulation 2017/2394. This was the case in a recent matter concerning Green Claims made by a long-distance coach company, which claimed that long-distance coaches are the most environmentally friendly means of transport.

Future developments

The upcoming EU legislation will further define the legal framework in Germany. After the previous government had already published a discussion draft at the end of 2024, the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection (“BMJV”) presented, following the change in government, its draft ministerial bill for the implementation of the EmpCo Directive into German law on 7 July 2025. Following stakeholder consultation, the German government published its revised draft bill on 29 August 2025 (Federal Law Gazette 21/1855). While the government draft introduces only minor adjustments, the overall approach remains closely aligned with the earlier BMJV ministerial bill. Shortly afterwards the governmental draft was forwarded to the German Bundesrat, as well as to the German Bundestag, as a matter of particular urgency.

Since the EmpCo Directive already sets out numerous precise requirements, there is little scope for deviating regulations at a national level and the draft bill constitutes largely a one-to-one transposition of the EmpCo Directive. The new provisions will be implemented within the existing framework of the UWG. Therefore, in view of the expected substantial similarity between the draft and final versions, companies would be well advised to familiarise themselves with the draft legislation at an early stage.

Separately, the proposed Green Claims Directive – intended to harmonise substantiation and verification of voluntary environmental claims – has faced political headwinds and, as of mid-2025, trilogues were paused; its final trajectory, as well as its potential impact on national laws, remains uncertain.