Real cases. Real rulings. Real lessons. From Katjes to Shell to Lufthansa — eight landmark greenwashing proceedings 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.
From 2026 additionally: The Bundesamt für Justiz and the Bundesamt für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit (BVL) receive direct fine powers for the first time through the UWG amendment 2026 — up to 4 per cent of worldwide annual turnover per violation.
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.
Maximum fine following implementation of the EmpCo Directive into German UWG (planned 2026). At least €100,000 per violation. Comparable to GDPR sanctions.
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 5 April 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. The ruling was confirmed as final by the OLG Karlsruhe (ref. 6 U 164/23).
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.
Lufthansa advertised the campaign "Fly more sustainably" — customers could offset their flight at the point of booking for a surcharge. The promise: use of SAF (Sustainable Aviation Fuel) plus offsetting through reforestation projects. DUH sued before the Landgericht Köln for misleading advertising. Core argument: the SAF contribution was less than 0.1 per cent of fuel; the remainder consisted of disputed offset projects.
The Landgericht Köln ruled on 21 March 2025 (ref. 84 O 29/24): the advertising "Fly more sustainably" combined with the promise of carbon-neutral flying via offsetting is misleading. Reforestation projects cannot reliably substantiate the claimed carbon neutrality. In parallel, the European Parliament clarified in February 2024 in Directive 2024/825 (EmpCo): advertising with offset greenhouse gas emissions is prohibited across the entire EU from 27 September 2026 — a significant reflection of the Lufthansa case.
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. Lufthansa has fundamentally revised its climate communications and now only communicates concrete reduction measures without neutrality claims.
In emission-intensive sectors, offsetting is not enough — consumers and courts expect real reduction.
H&M launched the "Conscious Collection" as a sustainable product line in 2010. From 2019, the group additionally attached sustainability scorecards to individual products: percentage figures on reduced water consumption or CO₂ output compared to conventional products. The Swedish consumer agency Konsumentverket launched an investigation in 2021. Quark.io and the US magazine Quartz demonstrated in 2022 that approximately 60 per cent of the scorecards contained misleading or even incorrect data — in some cases the values stated were worse than those of the standard products being compared.
Konsumentverket demanded that H&M cease using the scorecards in 2022. In parallel, the Norwegian Consumer Authority filed a complaint. In spring 2023, H&M withdrew the scorecards worldwide. The Dutch competition authority ACM imposed additional conditions on the use of the term "Conscious". At European level, the case was a driver for the EmpCo Directive. The European Commission listed H&M in its Greenwashing Report 2023 as a case study.
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.
Shell offered private customers the option of paying a surcharge of 1.1 cents per litre when refuelling to offset the CO₂ emissions from their fuel. The programme was called "Drive Carbon Neutral". The service was promoted with displays at petrol pumps and on receipts. The offset emissions flowed into twelve climate protection projects, predominantly REDD+ reforestation programmes in Peru and Indonesia. DUH sued before the Landgericht Hamburg for misleading advertising.
The Landgericht Hamburg decided on 9 August 2024 (ref. 315 O 108/22): the advertising "Drive Carbon Neutral" was misleading because the underlying offset projects could not reliably demonstrate the claimed climate effect. REDD+ projects in particular have been subject to scientific criticism for years due to a lack of additionality. The appeal before the OLG Hamburg is pending.
Pay-to-compensate models are not only criticised under competition law — they are a reputational risk. Shell removed the programme in Germany and instead offers verified e-fuel blending at pilot locations. 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.
McDonald's Sweden launched the "Climate-neutral McNuggets" campaign in 2022 — the packaging carried a blue climate seal promising that emissions from production and logistics would be offset through offset projects. In Germany, McDonald's launched similar campaigns in 2023 with a "CO₂-neutral burger". The Swedish competition authority launched proceedings in 2023. In parallel, the German Wettbewerbszentrale filed a lawsuit.
The Marknadsdomstolen Stockholm prohibited McDonald's in June 2024 from using the term "climate-neutral" on products. Reasoning: the beef production supply chain demonstrably generates significant methane emissions. Pure offsetting does not fulfil the expectation that the term "climate-neutral" creates in consumers. In Germany, the Wettbewerbszentrale issued a cease-and-desist declaration — McDonald's removed the seals worldwide in November 2024.
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 has for decades advertised "sustainably managed forests" as its timber source. The promise: all furniture uses exclusively FSC-certified timber from verified forestry. In 2020, the NGO Earthsight revealed in an investigative report that IKEA suppliers in Ukraine and Romania had systematically engaged in destructive logging in protected areas — in some cases using forged FSC certificates. The allegations were expanded in the Greenpeace report "Flatpacked Forests" in 2022.
Several consumer associations initiated proceedings in 2023 in Germany (LG Hamburg) and Sweden. IKEA responded with a self-commitment initiative: external audits by SGS and TÜV Süd, full supply chain transparency by the end of 2025, and withdrawal from problematic countries. In November 2024, IKEA reached a settlement with DUH. Content: advertising with "sustainable" was restricted to individual, demonstrably certified product lines — blanket statements about the entire product range were dropped.
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. The Deutsche Umwelthilfe massively expanded its legal team and filed systematic lawsuits — against Aldi, Lidl, dm, Edeka, Volkswagen, Lufthansa, Shell, BP, Eon and many others. 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. The European Commission adopted the EmpCo Directive (2024/825) in February 2024. It enters into force EU-wide on 27 September 2026 and transposes the BGH standard into 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.
TotalEnergies, Shell, Lufthansa, McDonald's — all failed with the argument that "offsetting = carbon neutrality". Courts and the EmpCo Directive 2026 reject 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 (Lufthansa), mineral oil (Shell, TotalEnergies), fast fashion (H&M), animal products (McDonald's) — these sectors are systematically monitored by litigants. A compliance violation is statistically more likely to be detected here.
What works: "CO₂ reduction of 28 per cent versus 2019, validated by DEKRA". What does not work: "We do a lot for the environment". Concrete, verifiable figures with a reference year and auditor are the only legally safe format.
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.
The wave of litigation is growing — both in number and in dispute value. Here are the key figures from DUH's annual review, the EU Greenwashing Report 2025 and the DIHK survey 2025.
Quelle: Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH), Zwischenbilanz zu Greenwashing-Klagen (2025).
With the EmpCo Directive entering into force on 27 September 2026, the Wettbewerbszentrale and DUH expect a doubling of litigation numbers in Q4 2026. Main reason: the per-se prohibited terms can be detected automatically — including by competitors. Anyone who has not cleaned up their communications by September will become a target.
Free test scan in under 30 seconds. No sign-up required. Result visible immediately — including score, per-se violations and suggested reformulations.
Empcora provides automated indications based on the EmpCo Directive (EU 2024/825) and the unfair-competition / consumer-protection law transposing it in your jurisdiction. These are a compliance indication and do not replace individual legal advice. No liability is assumed for the correctness, completeness or up-to-dateness of the analysis results. The final legal assessment rests with your law firm or an admitted lawyer.
