What the EU's greenwashing rules ban, claim by claim

For years, a misleading green claim in the EU had to be judged case by case. Was the average consumer misled? Would they have bought otherwise? That made enforcement slow and rare. Directive (EU) 2024/825, on empowering consumers for the green transition, changed the method. It adds specific green practices to the list of commercial practices that are unfair in all circumstances, so no assessment of the effect is needed. Member States had to transpose it by 27 March 2026, and it applies from 27 September 2026.

The scale of the problem was measured before the law was written. In a 2020 study for the Commission, 53 % of the environmental claims examined in the EU were vague, misleading or unfounded, and 40 % had no supporting evidence at all.

Banned whatever the context

These practices are now on the blacklist in Annex I of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. A national authority only has to show that the trader did it.

Generic environmental claims without excellent performance behind them. Words such as “environmentally friendly”, “eco-friendly”, “green”, “ecological”, “climate friendly” or “biodegradable” are banned unless the trader can show recognised excellent environmental performance relevant to the claim. That means the EU Ecolabel, an official ecolabel recognised in a Member State, or top performance under EU law. A claim that says, in the same communication, exactly what is better (“packaging made of 80 % recycled plastic”) is specific, not generic, and falls under the ordinary rules below.

Claims about the whole product when only part qualifies. Calling a bottle “made from recycled material” when only its label is recycled.

Climate claims based on offsetting. Saying a product has a neutral, reduced or positive impact on the climate because the trader has offset its emissions elsewhere. This is the change with the most reach: “carbon neutral delivery” and “climate-neutral coffee” were nearly always built on offset credits.

Sustainability labels nobody certifies. A label on a product must be based on a certification scheme with third-party monitoring, or set up by a public authority. A brand’s own leaf-shaped logo with the word “conscious” no longer qualifies.

Presenting a legal duty as a merit. A product that advertises the absence of a substance the law already bans in that category.

Allowed, if it can be proved

Everything else goes through the general test against misleading actions, which the directive also sharpened:

• Future performance (“net zero by 2040”) needs clear, public and verifiable commitments in a detailed and realistic implementation plan, with measurable, time-bound targets, checked regularly by an independent expert whose findings are available to consumers. A target with no plan behind it is misleading.
• Comparisons with other products or with the trader’s own past products must say how the comparison was made, which products are compared and how the information is kept up to date.
• Specific claims must be true and substantiated at the time they are made. The burden of proof sits with the trader.

Outside the EU

United Kingdom. The Competition and Markets Authority’s Green Claims Code (2021) sets out six principles, from “claims must be truthful and accurate” to “claims must consider the full life cycle”. Since 6 April 2025, the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 lets the CMA decide breaches of consumer law itself and fine up to 10 % of global turnover, without first going to court.

United States. The Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides (16 CFR Part 260, last revised in 2012) are not binding rules. They explain how the FTC reads deceptive green claims under Section 5 of the FTC Act. The FTC opened a review of them in December 2022. Several states, California in particular, legislate on top of them.

How to read a greenwashing story

A news report usually describes one of three things: a sanction already imposed, an investigation that has been opened, or a complaint filed by an NGO or a competitor. Only the first is a finding. When the story is about the EU, check:

1. Which rule. A blacklisted practice needs no proof of effect on consumers. A misleading-action case does, and takes longer.
2. When. Practices from before 27 September 2026 are judged under the old rules, even if the decision comes later.
3. Who decided. A consumer authority, a court, or an advertising self-regulation body. The last can order an advert withdrawn but cannot fine.