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. 4a UCPD as amended by EmpCo.

Misleading environmental terms: The TotalEnergies case

The Landgericht (LG, Regional Court) Düsseldorf prohibited TotalEnergies from advertising "climate neutral natural gas" through offsetting. The reasoning: offsetting merely compensates for emissions without actually reducing them. This constitutes a misleading statement in accordance with § 5 UWG. The use of terms such as "green" or "environmentally friendly" without concrete reference to measurable environmental benefits is also problematic.

Sustainability scorecards: H&M and criticism from the consumer authority

The Swedish consumer authority criticised H&M for misleading sustainability scorecards. The sustainability rating of garments was based on unclear criteria and distorted the actual environmental profile of the products. This violates § 5 UWG, as consumers are deceived about the actual environmental impact.

Shell's "carbon offsetting": Cease-and-desist letters from consumer advocates

Shell advertised "climate neutral driving" through offsetting projects. Consumer advocates issued cease-and-desist letters to the company, as the offsetting was not sufficiently transparent and comprehensible. Furthermore, it was argued that offsetting merely represents a displacement of emissions and does not achieve genuine reduction.

"Environmentally neutral": The ruling against dm

The Oberlandesgericht (OLG, Higher Regional Court) Stuttgart prohibited dm from advertising "environmentally neutral" for own-brand products. 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. 3 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: The ruling of the LG Frankfurt

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: The ruling of the OLG Düsseldorf

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.

Practical recommendations for marketing managers

1. **Review your website:** Scan all text, meta tags and alt texts for prohibited terms and misleading statements. 2. **Substantiate your claims:** Use recognised certifications such as EU Ecolabel, Blauer Engel or ISO 14001 to support your sustainability claims. 3. **Be specific:** Avoid vague formulations and provide concrete information about the environmental impact of your products and services. 4. **Create transparency:** Disclose your production conditions, supply chains and offsetting measures. 5. **Legal advice:** Seek legal counsel to ensure that your marketing communications comply with the requirements of the EmpCo Directive and the UWG.