Greenwashing Court Statistics 2025: Trends & Prospects of Success

The legal battle against greenwashing is gaining momentum. The EU Directive 2024/825 (EmpCo) will sanction further violations from September 2026, but clear trends in case law are already emerging. This article analyses the available judgments from the first five months of 2025 to provide marketing decision-makers with a well-founded assessment of the current situation.

Current Trends in Greenwashing Litigation

Analysis of publicly accessible judgments from federal courts, higher regional courts and regional courts shows a clear upward trend in greenwashing litigation. Up to 19 May 2025, 35 judgments (BGH, OLG, LG) have been handed down, with the majority (28 cases, 80%) ruling in favour of the claimants. 5 judgments went in favour of the defendants, 2 cases ended in settlement. The high success rates of claimants underscore the necessity of careful review of one's own communications.

Average amounts in dispute vary by court level. At the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH, German Federal Court of Justice) they stand at approximately €60,000 (with peak values up to €200,000), at the Oberlandesgerichte (OLG, Higher Regional Courts) at around €30,000 and at the Landgerichte (LG, Regional Courts) at an average of €15,000. These figures show that greenwashing litigation is relevant not only in principle, but also financially.

Common Grounds for Claims and Success Factors

The most common grounds for claims in 2025 can be divided into the following categories:

* **Climate neutrality claims (40% of cases):** Here the focus is on statements based on CO₂ compensation (carbon offsetting). The judgment of the BGH (I ZR 98/23) of 27 June 2024 (Katjes) has raised the bar and requires transparent disclosure of compensation mechanisms. * **Generic environmental terms (30% of cases):** Terms such as "sustainable", "environmentally friendly" or "green" are frequently classified as misleading if they are not supported by concrete and measurable evidence. * **Missing or inadequate certifications (20% of cases):** Companies that refer to sustainability aspects must substantiate this with recognised certifications. EU-Bio, Fairtrade FLO or GOTS are examples here. * **Misleading information on recycling and materials (10% of cases):** Statements about the recyclability of products or the use of sustainable materials must be correct and verifiable.

Defendants typically win when they can present concrete, external certifications, demonstrate a complete methodology (e.g. life cycle analysis, LCA) and respond quickly to cease-and-desist letters (within 7 days).

Relevant Certifications in the Greenwashing Context

The choice of the right certification is crucial. In addition to the certifications already mentioned such as EU-Bio, Demeter or Fairtrade FLO, standards such as OEKO-TEX 100 (textiles), Bluesign (textile production) and FSC/PEFC (wood and paper) are also relevant. For companies wishing to improve their climate balance, ISO 14064-1 (carbon footprint) and SBTi (Science Based Targets initiative) are important references. The use of a recognised certification significantly reduces the risk of litigation.

Outlook for 2026 and the EmpCo Directive

With the full implementation of the EmpCo Directive from 27 September 2026, a significant increase in proceedings is expected. In particular, the per-se prohibitions on "climate neutral" with carbon offsetting (Annex I No. 4a UCPD as amended by EmpCo) and generic claims (Annex I No. 2 UCPD as amended by EmpCo) will lead to an increase in litigation. It is to be expected that institutional litigation (e.g. by consumer associations) will also become more frequent.

Marketing decision-makers should act now and align their communications with the new legal framework. Proactive review of one's own advertising materials, the use of clear and verifiable statements and the use of recognised certifications are crucial steps to minimise the risk of litigation. Early consultation with an experienced lawyer is advisable.