Germany's unfair competition law reform bans 'greenwashing' claims in advertising

Consumers are increasingly prioritising sustainability in their purchasing decisions, whether for food, clothing or electronic devices. Companies have responded accordingly: terms such as “climate neutral”, “sustainable” or “eco-friendly”, green packaging designs and various sustainability labels now shape commercial communication in virtually all sectors. Yet not everything labelled “green” is genuinely “green” inside. The European Union legislator has recognised the need to establish binding standards for environmental advertising claims and to put a stop to “greenwashing”.

As part of the European Green Deal, Directive (EU) 2024/825, the Empowering Consumers (EmpCo) Directive, introduces far‑reaching new provisions with effect from 27 September. In Germany, these provisions are being implemented by the Third Amendment to the Act against Unfair Competition (UWG), published in the Federal Law Gazette on 19 February (BGBl. 2026 I No. 43).

The reform entails changes for companies in their use of environmental advertising claims. Certain environmental claims directed at consumers will be per se inadmissible, the requirements for sustainability labels and future-orientated environmental claims will be tightened, and enhanced information and transparency obligations will be introduced.

The relevant provisions apply from 27 September. There are no transitional or sell‑off periods. Deutsche Umwelthilfe, a German non-profit environmental and consumer protection association, is reported to have already announced its intention to enforce the new provisions rigorously. With no grace period, businesses with German operations face a short timeframe in which to review their commercial communication and labelling practices for compliance.

This article provides an overview of what must now be observed in relation to environmental advertising claims and focuses on the most important general key points of the upcoming changes.

From late September, the UWG will in essence be supplemented by new definitions, additional categories of prohibited conduct in its "black list" annex to section 3 (3) as well as extended prohibitions on misleading practices.

UWG 'black list'

The UWG reform expands the categories of prohibited conduct set out in the black list in the Annex to Section 3 (3) UWG. If a commercial practice fulfils the conditions of one of these categories of prohibited conduct, it is always – that is, without case‑by‑case assessment – inadmissible. Although the practices now expressly set out in the per se prohibitions were already, for the most part, subject to the provisions on misleading practices in sections 5 and 5a UWG before the reform, their inclusion in the black list means that from September the previous requirement for a case‑by‑case corrective will no longer apply.

In the new version of the UWG, the black list will include new provision, nos. 4a to 4c, concerning certain environmental claims and claims relating to environmental impacts. Under section 2 (2) no. 5 of the amended UWG, an environmental claim is, in abbreviated form, any message or representation in any form that gives the consumers addressed the impression that a product or company has zero impact or is less damaging to the environment, or has even positive impact to the environment. Another significant innovation is the introduction of No. 2a, which concerns the use of sustainability labels.

Generic claims

Under the new No. 4a of the black list, making a generic environmental claim is always inadmissible if the trader cannot prove a recognised excellent environmental performance underlying the claim.

A generic environmental claim is one that is not contained in a sustainability label and where the specification of the environmental claim is not clearly and prominently provided on the same medium, as defined in section 2 (2) no. 1 of the amended UWG. This refers primarily to striking or catchy short descriptions such as “environmentally friendly”, “green”, “climate‑friendly” or “ecological”, including where such environmental claims are found in trade marks, company names or logos.

To avoid infringing No. 4a, companies can specify their generic environmental claims by means of clarifications or additions in the same medium. Sufficient specification is, for example, assumed in the case of the claim “100% of energy used to produce this packaging comes from renewable sources”. By contrast, the claim “climate‑friendly packaging” is general and, therefore, without appropriate proof of a “recognised excellent environmental performance” will be per se inadmissible from September.

A “recognised excellent environmental performance” is deemed to exist where certain criteria of official labelling schemes or corresponding requirements of EU law are fulfilled, as defined in section 2 (2) No. 2 of the amended UWG. This includes environmental labels such as the EU Ecolabel or the Blauer Engel. If a company wishes in future to continue to advertise its products with generic environmental claims without specification, it is advisable to obtain corresponding certification.

Scope of claims

No. 4b of the black list prohibits making an environmental claim relating to the entire product or commercial activity where it only relates to a specific aspect. It will be inadmissible, for example, to market a product as “made with recycled material” if only part of the product, such as the product packaging, contains recycled material. Although this example could in principle already have been captured by the provision on misleading practices in section 5 (1) UWG prior to the entry into force of the reform, the new per se prohibition in no. 4b means that in future no case‑by‑case corrective will apply.

Offsetting GHG claims

In the case of offsetting‑related environmental claims about products, a case‑by‑case assessment as to whether they are misleading will no longer apply in future. Under the new No. 4c of the black list, environmental claims are inadmissible where they state that a product has neutral, reduced, or positive impacts on the environment and this assertion is based on the offsetting of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The background to this provision is the notion that CO₂ compensation claims should only be permissible if they are based on the actual lifecycle impact of the product in question and do not merely refer to the offsetting of GHG emissions outside the product’s value chain. An important exception to the per se prohibition in no. 4c is made for company‑related environmental claims, given the product‑related nature of the rule. These must, however, continue to be assessed against the general provision on misleading practices and Nos. 4a and 4b of the black list.

Sustainability labels

Another significant innovation concerns the regulation of the use of sustainability labels. In accordance with section 2 (2) No. 4 of the amended UWG, these are, broadly, to be understood as voluntary trust marks, quality marks or equivalent designations that are intended to promote a product, a process or a business in terms of its ecological or social characteristics; mandatory labels are excluded. Unlike environmental claims, the scope of sustainability labels is not restricted to environmental aspects and is generally to be understood very broadly.

From September, under to the newly inserted no. 2a of the black list, it will be inadmissible to affix a sustainability label if it is neither based on an externally verified certification scheme nor established by public authorities. It will no longer be permissible to use labels or quality marks without third‑party verification that make statements about ecological or social aspects of a product or company; for example “Fair Work Inside” or “No Food waste”. This will be the case even if these were previously standard on the market. Stamp‑ or seal‑like design elements that wrongly give the impression of external third‑party verification, should be avoided by companies. Whether recognised, reliable consumer tests such as the Öko‑Test or Stiftung Warentest fall within the new provisions remains open. An exception independently conducted and reliable tests has been argued for, but remains controversial. The Legal Affairs Committee has asked the federal government to seek clarification on this point from the European Commission.

To continue using sustainability labels in a lawful manner, companies can either join a certification scheme within the meaning of section 2 (2) No. 6 of the amended UWG or rely on labels established by public authorities, such as, for example, the Bio‑Siegel, provided that the relevant requirements are met. Since individual and collective marks may also fall within the concept of sustainability labels, companies with tra, and if necessary, adjust them at an early stage.

More changes

Further additions to the black list implementing the EmpCo Directive address misleading indications regarding software updates, durability and repairability of goods. The newly inserted no. 23d of the black list gives rise to various transparency and information obligations for companies in business-to-consumer (B2C) communications. In addition, as a specific expression of the inadmissibility of advertising with self‑evident facts, No. 10a means it will be per se prohibited to present requirements imposed by law as a distinctive feature of an offer.

Misleading practices

The UWG reform goes well beyond the new categories of the black list. The provisions on misleading practices in the UWG are also further specified and extended.

Future target claims

Under section 5 (3) No. 4 of the amended UWG, environmental claims about future environmental performance are misleading if they are not based on a clear, publicly available implementation plan with measurable and time‑bound targets that is regularly reviewed by an independent external expert. This covers all forward‑looking environmental claims in B2C communication that promote long‑term transformation processes or self‑imposed environmental targets, specifically claims such as “by 2030 we will produce in a fully climate‑neutral manner” or “plastic‑free by 2030”. The explanatory memorandum to the draft act that providing the necessary explanations via a QR code could be considered; judicial clarification is, however, still pending.

The provision is intended, on the one hand, to create transparency for consumers and, on the other hand, to enable companies to promote their environmental performance even before achieving their targets. The broad scope of this category of misleading practice, combined with the strict statutory requirements for a lawful implementation plan and the sanctions that may be imposed for breaches, may mean companies will in the future be reluctant to use forward‑looking commercial claims. Expert advice at an early stage on whether forward‑looking environmental claims are lawful will become even more important.

Prohibitions supplemented

The UWG reform also complements the key product and service characteristics in the provision on misleading practices to include environmental aspects under section 5 (2) no. 1 of the UWG. From September, the key characteristics under that provision will also include “environmental or social characteristics, accessories, circularity aspects, such as durability, repairability or recyclability”. As the Federal Court of Justice had already held in its Klimaneutral ruling (BGH ZUR 2024, 613), these characteristics to fall within the provision in section 5 (1) of the UWG. This amendment primarily constitutes a clarification. It should be noted that this provision also applies in the business-to-business (B2B) context.

Non-compliance consequences

In the event of breaches of the new provisions of the UWG, companies face cease‑and‑desist letters, preliminary injunctions and actions for injunctive relief by competitors as well as consumer and competition associations.

Under certain conditions, claims for damages and fines of up to €50,000 or for companies with an annual turnover of more than €1.25 million, up to 4% of EU‑wide annual turnover, may also be imposed.

Osborne Clarke comment

Many of the provisions that will be explicitly enshrined in law by the UWG reform from September are already established in judicial practise. Whether the resulting clear statutory wording will lead to a stricter assessment remains to be seen; in many respects, there is a need for clarification and concretisation through judicial practice. The new per se prohibitions in the black list mean, however, the case by case assessment will no longer apply. 

For companies, active in Germany, there is a concrete need for action and to consider a number of practical priorities. 

• Assessment of exposure and prioritise risks. Analysing which products, business units and communication channels, including B2B and B2C, are specifically covered by the new UWG rules is a logical starting point.
• Stock take of environmental and sustainability claims. A complete inventory of all “green” claims in advertising; packaging; online presence; social media; corporate social responsibility and environmental, social, and governance communication; and general terms and conditions.
• Comparison of the scope and content of claims. Each claim warrant review to determine whether it is too vague or general (no. 4a), whether it impermissibly relates to the overall product or the entire company (no. 4b) or is based on compensation (No. 4c), or whether a factual basis and evidence are available. Compensation based climate neutrality claims on B2C communication, where the compensation takes place outside the product’s value chain, are a particular areas to address ahead of September.
• Review of labels, logos and own designations. The sustainability labels, icons and collective and individual marks used will require review to determine whether the new provisions apply and whether it is necessary to switch to public or other certified labels.
• Adaptation of forward looking environmental promises. All claims about future environmental performance such as climate neutrality targets also require a review of whether they need to be removed, specified or underpinned by a legally compliant, publicly available implementation plan.
• Processes, documentation and training. Businesses will need to examine internal approval processes for green claims, verification and documentation obligations including monitoring of certifications, and training for marketing, product and sales teams on the new risks and requirements.