Greenwashing Cases: 10 Examples from Germany

Greenwashing – the misleading promotion of environmental friendliness – is widespread in Germany. EU Directive 2024/825 (EmpCo) tightens the rules from 27 September 2026 onwards and presents businesses with new challenges. This article analyses 10 concrete cases to provide marketing managers with practical insights.

Climate neutrality and carbon offsetting: The Katjes ruling

The Bundesgerichtshof (BGH, German Federal Court of Justice) (I ZR 98/23 of 27 June 2024) clarified in the Katjes case that the claim "climate neutral" on product packaging can be misleading if the offsetting is not transparently and comprehensibly explained. The mere statement without detailed information about the nature and quality of the offsetting measures is inadmissible. This particularly concerns the use of carbon offset certificates, whose quality and effectiveness may be doubtful. The EmpCo Directive prohibits the use of "climate neutral" in connection with offsetting altogether in accordance with Annex I No. 4c UCPD as amended by EmpCo.

Misleading environmental terms: The TotalEnergies case

The Landgericht (LG, Regional Court) Düsseldorf (38 O 92/22, judgment of 24 March 2023) dealt with climate-protection advertising by TotalEnergies. At the heart of the legal assessment was that offsetting merely compensates for emissions without actually reducing them, and that corresponding claims without sufficient explanation may qualify as misleading under § 5 UWG. The use of terms such as "green" or "environmentally friendly" without concrete reference to measurable environmental benefits is also problematic.

Sustainability scorecards: the case of misleading product ratings

A widely reported example concerned product-level sustainability scorecards based on the Higg Index. A 2022 investigation found that scorecards on a major fashion retailer's website misrepresented the environmental profile of garments — in some cases reversing the meaning of the underlying data, so that more water- or resource-intensive items appeared more sustainable. Following criticism (including from the Norwegian Consumer Authority), the industry body paused public use of the scorecards pending a methodology review. The episode illustrates a general principle: rating or scorecard claims must rest on a transparent, correctly applied methodology — otherwise they risk being misleading under § 5 UWG.

"Carbon offsetting" advertising under scrutiny by consumer advocates

Advertising "climate neutral driving" through offsetting projects is regularly criticised. Consumer associations take action against such claims where the offsetting is not sufficiently transparent and comprehensible. It is also argued that offsetting merely represents a displacement of emissions and does not achieve genuine reduction.

"Environmentally neutral": The ruling against dm

The Landgericht (LG, Regional Court) Karlsruhe (26 July 2023, 13 O 46/22 KfH) prohibited dm from advertising own-brand products as "climate neutral" / "environmentally neutral". The reasoning: the claim "environmentally neutral" suggests that the products have no negative impact on the environment whatsoever, which is not true in reality. Complete neutrality is scarcely achievable and requires a comprehensive life cycle analysis.

Own sustainability labels: Violation of the EmpCo Directive

Companies that use their own sustainability labels violate the EmpCo Directive (Annex I No. 2a UCPD as amended by EmpCo) if these are not accompanied by an independent, external certification scheme. The credibility of sustainability claims depends substantially on the objectivity and transparency of the certification process. Recognised certifications such as EU-Bio, Fairtrade or Bluesign offer greater legal certainty.

Future commitments: The requirements of the EmpCo Directive

Statements such as "climate neutral by 2030" are only permissible if a publicly accessible, externally verified implementation plan is available. The EmpCo Directive requires concrete measures and measurable targets to ensure the credibility of future commitments.

Misleading advertising with "natural" products

Under Section 5 UWG and the EmpCo Directive (EU 2024/825), advertising with "natural" products can be misleading if the ingredients are not predominantly of natural origin. The use of terms such as "natural" requires a clear definition and transparent disclosure of ingredients.

"Sustainable fashion": Blanket eco-claims without certification

Blanket advertising with "sustainable fashion" is legally risky when production conditions and the materials used are not transparently disclosed. Under Section 5 UWG and the EmpCo Directive (EU 2024/825), such generic claims are inadmissible without concrete, verifiable evidence — sustainability encompasses not only ecological aspects, but also social and ethical standards.

Regional origin: "regional" and "local"

Under Section 5 UWG and the EmpCo Directive (EU 2024/825), the indication of regional origin of a product must not be misleading. The regional origin must actually exist and must not merely be suggested. There is no fixed kilometre limit in law; what matters is the consumer understanding in the individual case.

Legal classification for marketing managers

From 27 September 2026, the following aspects determine whether marketing communication conforms to the EmpCo Directive and the UWG:

1. Scope of the claims: All website text, meta tags and alt texts containing environmental claims fall within the scope of the rules; prohibited terms and misleading statements create legal risk.
2. Substantiation obligation: Sustainability claims require substantiation, for example through recognised certifications such as EU Ecolabel, Blauer Engel or ISO 14001.
3. Generic terms: Vague formulations without concrete information about the environmental impact of products and services are classified as misleading.
4. Transparency obligation: Production conditions, supply chains and offsetting measures must be disclosed where they are the basis of an environmental claim.
5. Legal assessment: Whether marketing communications comply with the EmpCo Directive and the UWG is a legal question; this article does not constitute legal advice.