Real cases. Real rulings. Real lessons. From Katjes to TotalEnergies — landmark greenwashing proceedings and typical case groups from recent years, analysed concisely. Plus: what connects the rulings, how to protect your business, and which immediate measures apply when you receive a cease-and-desist.
Last updated: 15 April 2026
In Germany, four groups are active. They differ in methodology, dispute values and willingness to negotiate. Who issues the notice determines the defence strategy.
The heavyweight in the greenwashing field. More than 100 completed proceedings since 2020. Focus: climate and CO₂ advertising.
Germany's oldest self-regulatory body. Files both out-of-court notices and court actions. The litigation vehicle for the BGH ruling against Katjes.
Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband (vzbv) plus state associations. Right to bring proceedings since the UWG amendment in 2008. Focus: mass phenomena such as sustainability scoring.
Directly affected competitors have a right to injunctive relief under § 8 UWG. More common in B2B markets than actions by DUH/Wettbewerbszentrale. High dispute values are typical.
Sanctions framework (German example): The EU rules (UCPD 2005/29, as amended by the EmpCo Directive 2024/825) are transposed nationally; the framework below is Germany's. In addition to injunctive relief (§ 8 UWG) and damages (§ 9 UWG), § 19 UWG provides for a fine of up to €50,000. Where annual turnover exceeds €1.25 million, the fine can reach up to 4 per cent of the annual turnover generated in the EU Member State concerned; if the turnover can only be estimated, the maximum is €2 million. Enforcement in Germany is driven by competitors, associations and the courts — there is no dedicated greenwashing fining authority. In your jurisdiction the national transposition and enforcement apply.
A greenwashing cease-and-desist is rarely a single line item — it accumulates from several components. Here is the typical cost breakdown for mid-sized businesses.
Out-of-court cease-and-desist from Wettbewerbszentrale or DUH. Calculated under RVG based on the dispute value (typically €25,000–€50,000).
Mandatory component of every cease-and-desist declaration. Payable for each breach of the declaration. In repeat cases, the amount often doubles.
A fine of up to €50,000 under § 19 UWG. Where annual turnover exceeds €1.25 million, up to 4 per cent of the turnover generated in the EU Member State concerned; if only estimated, a maximum of €2 million.
If the case goes to court. Dispute value from €25,000, including both parties' legal costs and court fees. Three instances regularly cost six figures.
Each case follows the same structure: facts, proceedings, lesson. At the centre is the Katjes ruling by the BGH — the landmark leading decision of 2024 for all subsequent proceedings.
The Wettbewerbszentrale sued confectionery manufacturer Katjes in 2022 over the advertising claim "Since 2021, Katjes has produced all products carbon neutrally". The term appeared on packaging, in trade journal advertisements and on the website. The actual carbon neutrality was not achieved through CO₂ reduction but almost exclusively through the purchase of carbon offset certificates. The packaging itself contained no note to this effect — only a QR code leading to an external website.
At first instance before the Landgericht (Regional Court) Kleve, Katjes initially won. The OLG Düsseldorf (Court of Appeal) confirmed the ruling in favour of the Wettbewerbszentrale in 2023. Katjes appealed on a point of law. On 27 June 2024, the First Civil Senate of the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) (ref. I ZR 98/23) ruled: the term "carbon neutral" is ambiguous. Consumers generally do not distinguish between actual emission reduction and offsetting measures. Clarification must therefore already appear in the advertisement itself — a link to the website is expressly insufficient.
The Katjes ruling has since become the leading decision for all carbon-neutral advertising in Germany. It shapes the interpretation of § 5 UWG (prohibition of misleading advertising) and is cited in almost every subsequent decision. In concrete terms: without clear disclosure in the immediate context of the advertisement, terms such as "carbon neutral", "CO₂ neutral" or "climate positive" are contrary to competition law.
Disclosure must appear in the advertisement itself. QR codes and website links are not sufficient.
TotalEnergies advertised CO₂-offset heating oil for private customers with a promise of carbon neutrality. The promise: the CO₂ emissions generated by combustion would be offset through certified climate protection projects — predominantly reforestation projects in South America and Africa. The Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) sued in 2022 before the Landgericht Düsseldorf for misleading advertising. Key criticism: burning heating oil necessarily generates greenhouse gases. The promise of carbon neutrality was therefore inherently contradictory.
The Landgericht Düsseldorf ruled in favour of DUH on 24 March 2023 (ref. 38 O 92/22). Reasoning: the advertised offset projects could not prove the claimed effect. Reforestation projects only sequester carbon dioxide over decades and are at risk from fires, pests or premature clearing. Immediate carbon neutrality cannot thereby be achieved. The court prohibited the advertising under threat of penalty.
Offset projects are subject to strict scrutiny. Not every certificate withstands the standard of § 5 UWG. In particular, projects with long binding periods (reforestation, rewilding) are, in the court's view, unsuitable as a basis for current carbon neutrality.
Carbon neutrality of fossil fuels through offsetting is legally risky — reforestation projects are viewed with particular scepticism.
From 2021, the drugstore chain dm labelled numerous own-brand products (Balea, denkmit, alverde) with the green seal "environmentally neutral product". The term was a proprietary creation developed in collaboration with consulting firm ClimatePartner. CO₂ emissions across the entire lifecycle were taken into account, offset through climate protection projects and "insetting" measures. The Wettbewerbszentrale sued in 2022 for misleading advertising.
The Landgericht Karlsruhe (ref. 13 O 46/22) prohibited the advertising with the term "environmentally neutral". Reasoning: the term suggests a comprehensive effect on all environmental protection goods (soil, water, biodiversity, climate). This cannot be demonstrated through pure CO₂ offsetting alone. Other environmental impacts such as microplastics, water consumption or eutrophication were completely absent from the calculation.
Terms such as "environmentally neutral", "nature neutral" or "sustainable" are even more problematic under § 5 UWG than "carbon neutral", because they make an even broader promise. The EmpCo Directive lists these terms as per-se prohibited from 2026 — they may only be used if the entire company genuinely operates neutrally.
General environmental promises are legally riskier than specific climate statements — they require evidence across all environmental goods.
In this case group, customers can make their flight "carbon-neutral" at the point of booking for a surcharge. The promise: use of SAF (Sustainable Aviation Fuel) plus offsetting through reforestation projects. Consumer associations challenge such advertising as misleading, since the SAF contribution is marginal and the remainder relies on disputed offset projects.
The promise of carbon-neutral flying via offsetting is assessed as misleading because reforestation projects cannot reliably substantiate the claimed carbon neutrality. Courts and consumer associations increasingly act against offsetting-based climate advertising. Directive 2024/825 (EmpCo) clarifies that advertising with offset greenhouse gas emissions is prohibited across the entire EU from 27 September 2026.
Sectors with inherently high emissions (aviation, shipping, heavy industry) are particularly in the crosshairs of litigants. Apparent solutions via offsetting or marginal SAF blending barely meet the legal standard.
In emission-intensive sectors, offsetting is not enough — consumers and courts expect real reduction.
H&M marketed the "Conscious Collection" as a sustainable product line and attached sustainability scorecards to individual products: percentage figures on reduced water consumption or CO₂ output compared to conventional products. The Dutch consumer and market authority ACM objected to the statements as unclear and insufficiently substantiated; H&M then committed to adjusting or refraining from such claims. As early as 2019, the Norwegian consumer authority had criticised the sustainability advertising of the line.
The objection concerned comparative sustainability figures without a sufficiently transparent and verifiable calculation methodology. Two US class actions against the Conscious advertising were dismissed or withdrawn in 2023; the European administrative proceedings shaped the debate around the EU-wide regulation of environmental claims.
Sustainability scoring is highly sensitive. Anyone providing comparative figures must be methodologically transparent and verifiable. The EmpCo Directive applicable from 2026 stipulates: such comparisons are only permissible if the calculation methodology is publicly accessible and the data have been externally audited.
Sustainability scores require publicly verifiable calculation methods and external audits.
In this case group, private customers can pay a surcharge per litre when refuelling to "offset" the CO₂ emissions from their fuel. The offset emissions flow into climate protection projects, predominantly REDD+ reforestation programmes. Consumer associations act against such advertising for being misleading.
Offsetting-based "carbon-neutral" advertising is assessed as misleading because the underlying offset projects cannot reliably demonstrate the claimed climate effect. REDD+ projects in particular have been subject to scientific criticism for years due to a lack of additionality.
Pay-to-compensate models are not only criticised under competition law — they are a reputational risk. The EmpCo Directive explicitly prohibits advertising with "carbon neutrality through offsetting" from 2026.
Pay-to-compensate models are banned EU-wide from 2026 — and are also risky during the transition period.
Fast-food chains have advertised individual products as "climate-neutral", with a climate seal promising that emissions from production and logistics would be offset through offset projects. Such claims for food with a high climate footprint have repeatedly been the subject of public and legal criticism.
The point of criticism: the supply chain for animal products (in particular beef) generates significant greenhouse gas emissions. Pure offsetting does not fulfil the expectation that the term "climate-neutral" creates in consumers. Such climate-neutrality claims based on offsetting are regarded as misleading.
Food products with a high climate footprint (beef, lamb, dairy) cannot be "neutralised" through offsetting. The EmpCo Directive explicitly lists such claims as a per-se prohibition from 2026. Consequence: communicate actual reduction measures instead of neutrality claims.
Animal products and carbon-neutrality claims are a toxic combination — regulators are cracking down worldwide.
IKEA advertises "sustainably managed forests" as its timber source and the use of certified timber from verified forestry. Investigations by non-governmental organisations (including Earthsight) raised the allegation that parts of the supply chain did not match this blanket sustainability promise. No court ruling or administrative proceeding on these allegations is known; IKEA rejects the allegations.
At the heart of the public debate was the question of whether blanket sustainability statements about an entire product range are tenable without seamless supply chain transparency. From the critics' perspective, certifications (such as FSC, PEFC) do not replace continuous control either.
Blanket sustainability statements about the entire product range are untenable without seamless supply chain transparency. Even major brands with certifications (FSC, PEFC) can be caught out in individual cases — random sample checks are insufficient. From 2026, the EmpCo Directive requires a 100 per cent rate for certified supply chains plus an annual audit.
Certificates are only as good as their controls. Blanket sustainability claims across entire product ranges carry high risk.
The background to a turning point that became fully visible by 2024 at the latest — and is set to accelerate further from 2026.
Until around 2018, climate-related advertising in Germany was treated as a legal no man's land. Terms such as "carbon neutral" or "sustainable" were effectively unprotected empty formulae that marketing departments used freely. Early lawsuits from individual consumer centres were largely inconsequential. Courts decided inconsistently, often in favour of the advertisers.
The turning point came between 2020 and 2022. Consumer and environmental associations massively expanded their legal capacity and filed systematic proceedings across retail, automotive, aviation and energy sectors. In parallel, the European Commission's 2022 study on the greenwashing market found that more than 50 per cent of environment-related advertising claims in Europe were false or misleading.
The decisive turning point for German case law, however, was the BGH ruling against Katjes of 27 June 2024. With it, the principle was established: disclosure must be contained in the advertisement itself — links are not sufficient. Since then, virtually every subsequent proceeding cites this decision — but as a national German ruling, the BGH judgment binds only in Germany. The European Commission adopted the EmpCo Directive (2024/825) in February 2024. It enters into force EU-wide on 27 September 2026 and is what establishes a comparable standard as uniform European law.
What five years ago was considered legitimate marketing vocabulary is today regularly the subject of costly proceedings. Anyone who in 2026 still advertises with "carbon neutral" or "sustainable" without providing precise evidence risks cease-and-desist notices, fines and reputational damage — at a speed that will surprise every marketing roadmap.
Beyond the individual facts, clear patterns emerge. Anyone who knows these can assess the risk in their own advertising.
Quintessence from Katjes (BGH 2024). Links to websites or QR codes are not sufficient. Consumers must understand without clicking whether a climate promise arises from real reduction or offsetting.
In several proceedings the argument that "offsetting = carbon neutrality" failed; courts and consumer associations act against offsetting-based climate advertising. The EmpCo Directive 2026 likewise rejects offsetting claims as a marketing tool.
"Environmentally neutral" is legally more problematic than "carbon neutral" because it is broader in scope. The wider the promise, the harder the proof and the higher the risk of a cease-and-desist.
Aviation, mineral oil, fast fashion and animal products — these sectors are systematically monitored by litigants. A compliance violation is statistically more likely to be detected here.
General environmental claims without proof of superior environmental performance are covered by the annex to § 3(3) UWG (no. 4a, German law). What is legally relevant is whether a claim is sufficiently concrete and verifiable. Example for illustration: a phrase such as "We do a lot for the environment" remains unsubstantiated, whereas a figure such as "CO₂ reduction of 28 per cent versus 2019, validated by an auditor" meets the substantiation requirement.
Associations such as DUH evaluate archived advertising via archive.org. A slogan published in 2022 can receive a cease-and-desist in 2026 if it is still online. Consequence: systematically clean up all archives, regular spot checks on Wayback Machine and Google Cache. Old PDFs, brochure downloads and press releases are particularly frequent sources of outdated climate claims.
In B2B business, cease-and-desist notices are more commonly issued by competitors than by associations. Dispute values are significantly higher here (€50,000–€250,000). Particularly risky: pitches and tenders in which greenwashing claims provide a competitive advantage — the unsuccessful competitor regularly sues afterwards.
Five concrete immediate measures — implementable within the next 14 days, without external consultants.
Create a complete inventory of all environment-related statements — on the website, in brochures, on packaging, in emails, newsletters and social media posts. Use our Greenwashing Check for an automated pre-analysis of your domain.
Per-se prohibited from 27 September 2026: "carbon neutral", "environmentally neutral", "CO₂-free", "sustainable" without specification, "green", "Eco". Replace these terms with concrete statements containing figures, a reference year and a calculation basis.
Every environment-related statement requires supporting evidence. Ideal: a publicly accessible document (audit report, ISO 14064 certificate, lifecycle analysis) — linked directly from the advertisement. Retention period: at least 5 years.
Before any major marketing campaign with environmental references: an external compliance check by a law firm or specialist agency. Cost €800–€3,500 depending on the campaign scope — ten times cheaper than a cease-and-desist proceeding.
A one-off audit is not enough. Employees in marketing and product development create new content daily. A compliance monitoring tool such as Empcora scans your domain weekly or daily — you are notified immediately of any violations before competitors or associations discover them.
Six steps that every managing director and head of marketing must know. Follow the order — mistakes in the first 48 hours harden legally later.
First step after receiving a cease-and-desist: remove the challenged statement from the website, social media, email templates and print. Also check old cached versions (Google Cache, archive.org). Save a screenshot of the removal with a timestamp.
Never negotiate directly with the opposing law firm. Also do not sign the cease-and-desist declaration yourself — a modified declaration is usually cheaper and safer. Specialist competition law solicitors can be found via the Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer (Federal Bar Association).
The deadline set in the notice (typically 7–14 days) must be met — otherwise an interim injunction with tenfold costs is at risk. But a solicitor should always be engaged within this period. If time is tight: request an extension in writing.
Who wrote the advertisement? What internal evidence existed? When was it published? This documentation is the basis for legal defence and internal learning processes. Retain for at least 10 years.
The pre-drafted cease-and-desist declaration from the opposing law firm is regularly too broadly framed. A solicitor can prepare a restricted version that covers only the specific statement — not the entire subject area.
A cease-and-desist usually indicates a systemic problem. After the case is resolved, have your entire marketing communications audited — otherwise the next cease-and-desist will follow within a few weeks.
Contextual figures from the Deutsche Umwelthilfe's published interim review of its proceedings against misleading climate advertising. Evidence and source via the linked reference.
Quelle: Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH), Zwischenbilanz zu Greenwashing-Klagen (2025).
Directive (EU) 2024/825 applies EU-wide from 27 September 2026. Several of the rules that then become relevant — for example on generic environmental claims or sustainability labels — attach to clearly identifiable wording that can also be checked in one's own advertising. Until then, the existing national unfair-competition law remains decisive.
Free test scan in under 30 seconds. No sign-up required. Result visible immediately — with a score and the per-se violations found, each with its legal basis.
Empcora is a pure checking and documentation service and provides general information only on the legal situation based on the EmpCo Directive (EU 2024/825) and the unfair-competition / consumer-protection law transposing it in your jurisdiction including references. This is not individual legal advice and includes neither the rewriting nor the drafting of texts. No liability or warranty is assumed for the correctness, completeness or up-to-dateness of the analysis, nor for any legal consequences. The legal assessment of an individual case rests with an admitted law firm or lawyer.
