Green claims under scrutiny

Greenwashing: From reputational issue to regulatory offense

‘Greenwashing’ means presenting a product, brand, or business as more environmentally friendly than it really is. Italian law now defines the key term, ‘environmental claim’ (asserzione ambientale) very broadly. It covers any voluntary message or representation in a commercial communication, in any form, including text, images, graphics, symbols, trademarks, brand names, company names, and product names. A claim falls within the definition of greenwashing if it falsely states or implies that a product, product category, brand, or trader has a positive or zero environmental impact, is less harmful than its competitors, or has improved its impact over time.

The most common forms of greenwashing are:

• Vague claims such as ‘eco-friendly’, ‘green’, or ‘climate-conscious’.
• Self-made or unverified sustainability labels.
• Selective disclosure, where one green feature of a product is presented as if it describes the whole product.

The 2019 Eni Diesel+ case by the Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) demonstrates how fine this line can be. The AGCM fined Eni €5 million, finding that its advertising carried the environmental claims made for one biofuel component (‘Green Diesel’) over to the fuel as a whole. In April 2024, however, the Council of State (Consiglio di Stato) annulled the decision in full. It held that ‘green’ claims are not barred in principle for products that remain somewhat polluting but have a lower impact than others, and that Eni’s supporting claims tied the green feature to a single component and described the benefit in relative terms. Importantly, the Eni case was decided under the general tests for misleading practices, well before the introduction of Italy’s Legislative Decree No. 30/2026.

More recently, in 2025, the AGCM fined the company that runs Shein’s European websites €1 million, finding that the green claims on those sites were vague, generic, or overly emphatic in some cases – and omissive or misleading in others.

Since 27 September 2026, practices that regulators used to assess case by case are, in many instances, prohibited outright.

The EU framework

Unfair Commercial Practices Directive

Since 2005, Directive 2005/29/EC (Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, UCPD) has been the general EU rulebook on misleading actions and omissions in business-to-consumer dealings. It applies through a general fairness clause, specific tests for misleading conduct, and a ‘blacklist’ of practices that are always unfair.

Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive

Directive (EU) 2024/825 of 28 February 2024 (Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive, ECGT) amends both the UCPD and Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights. Its aim is to protect consumers from unfair practices and give them better information for the green transition. Three of the changes in the ECGT are most important, namely:

• The addition of new definitions, including ‘environmental claim’, ‘generic environmental claim’, ‘sustainability label’, ‘certification scheme’, and ‘recognised excellent environmental performance’.
• The treatment of environmental, social, and circularity features of a product as main characteristics, meaning that misleading statements about them can be considered unfair.
• The addition of new practices to the blacklist.

The ECGT also covers premature obsolescence, durability, and repairability. Member States were required to transpose it by 27 March 2026 and apply the new rules from 27 September 2026.

Italy’s implementation: Legislative Decree No. 30/2026

The legal instrument

Italy implemented the ECGT through Legislative Decree of 20 February 2026, No. 30 (Decreto legislativo 20 febbraio 2026, n. 30). It was published in the Gazzetta Ufficiale, General Series No. 56, on 9 March 2026. It was adopted under the 2024 European Delegation Law (Law of 13 June 2025, No. 91) and, consistently with the ECGT, its provisions apply from 27 September 2026.

The decree works by amending the Consumer Code (Codice del Consumo, Legislative Decree of 6 September 2005, No. 206).

What has changed compared with the previous rules

Before the decree, a green claim was unlawful only if it failed the general tests for misleading actions and omissions in Articles 21 and 22 of the Consumer Code. That required case-by-case proof that the claim was likely to distort consumers’ decisions. The decree keeps that framework and builds on it in several ways:

1. New definitions in Article 18: The decree defines ‘environmental claim’, ‘generic environmental claim’, ‘sustainability label’ (etichetta di sostenibilità), ‘certification scheme’, and ‘recognised excellent environmental performance’. Notably:
   • A generic claim is one that is not part of a sustainability label and is not specified clearly and prominently in the same medium.
   • A certification scheme must be open to all traders on transparent and non-discriminatory terms. Its requirements must be developed with experts and stakeholders, it must have procedures to deal with non-compliance, and compliance must be monitored by an independent and competent third party.
2. A broader concept of main characteristics in Article 21(1)(b): A product’s main characteristics now expressly include its environmental and social characteristics and circularity aspects such as durability, repairability, and recyclability.
3. New misleading practices in Article 21(2). Two practices are added, namely:
   • Claims about future environmental performance (for example, ‘net zero by 2035’) that are not backed by clear, objective, publicly available, and verifiable commitments. Those commitments must be set out in a detailed and realistic implementation plan with measurable, time-bound targets, and allocated resources. The plan must be verified periodically by an independent third party whose findings are made available to consumers.
   • Advertising, as a benefit for consumers, something irrelevant that does not derive from the product or the business.

Practices that are now always unfair (Article 23(1))

The following practices are banned without any further assessment of their effect on consumers:

• Displaying a sustainability label that is not based on a certification scheme and is not established by public authorities (letter b-bis).
• Making a generic environmental claim when the trader cannot demonstrate recognized excellent environmental performance relevant to the claim (letter d-bis). Such performance means compliance with the EU Ecolabel, an officially recognized EN ISO 14024 Type I ecolabel, or best environmental performance under other EU law.
• Making a claim about the whole product or the trader’s whole business when it concerns only one aspect or one activity (letter d-ter).
• Claiming, on the basis of greenhouse gas emissions offsetting, that a product has a neutral, reduced, or positive impact on the environment (letter d-quater).
• Presenting requirements imposed by law on all products in a category as a distinctive feature of the trader’s own offer (letter l-bis).

The offsetting ban is aimed at product-level claims such as ‘climate neutral’ or ‘CO₂-compensated’. Companies may still communicate genuine investment in offsetting projects, provided the message is not misleading and they do not use it to describe the product’s own impact.

Comparison tools

Under new Article 22(5-ter), when a trader provides a service comparing products on environmental, social, or circularity grounds, information on the comparison method, the products, and suppliers compared, and how the information is kept up to date, is considered material.

Substantiation and documentation

The decree does not create a separate filing obligation. In practice, though, the business carries the burden of proof. Under Article 27(5) of the Consumer Code, the AGCM can require a trader to prove that the facts behind a commercial practice are accurate. If the trader does not provide that proof, or the proof is insufficient, the facts are deemed inaccurate. That means keeping a substantiation file for each claim before it is published.

AGCM enforcement

Under Article 27 of the Consumer Code, the AGCM can:

• Act on its own initiative or on a complaint from any interested party.
• Request documents and information. Failing to comply is punishable by fines of €2,000 to €20,000, rising to €4,000 to €40,000 if the information provided is untrue.
• Order internet and network service providers to remove online content, including as an interim measure (Article 27(3-bis)).
• Accept binding commitments to end the infringement, except where the practice is manifestly unfair and serious (Article 27(7)).
• Prohibit an unfair practice and order publication of its decision or a corrective statement at the trader’s expense.

The main fine for an unfair practice ranges from €5,000 to €10,000,000, based on the seriousness and duration of the infringement and the trader’s financial position. Where a fine is imposed under Article 21 of Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 (the CPC Regulation), the maximum is 4% of annual turnover in Italy or in the Member States concerned. Where turnover data are not available, the maximum is €2 million.

When setting fines, the AGCM applies non-exhaustive criteria. These include the nature, gravity, extent, and duration of the violation, and any steps the trader took to mitigate or remedy the harm to consumers. It also applies the criteria in Article 11 of Law No. 689/1981.

Failing to comply with interim measures, prohibition orders, or commitments is punishable by fines of €10,000 to €10,000,000. Repeated non-compliance can lead to suspension of the business for up to 30 days.

Civil and criminal exposure

The AGCM is only one possible route for enforcement. Others include:

• Unfair competition: The ordinary courts keep jurisdiction over unfair competition claims under Article 2598 of the Civil Code. This is the usual route for competitors seeking injunctions and damages.
• Collective actions: Consumer associations and other entitled bodies can bring collective injunctions under Article 840-sexiesdecies of the Code of Civil Procedure. Collective damages actions sit in the same Title VIII-bis.
• Self-regulation: Italy’s first court ruling on greenwashing, an interim order of the Court of Gorizia dated 25 November 2021 relied on Article 12 of the Italian Advertising Self-Regulatory Code.
• Criminal law: In the most serious cases, where goods differ from what was declared, prosecution for fraud in trade under Article 515 of the Criminal Code (fraud in the exercise of commerce) cannot be ruled out.

International comparisons

United States

The Federal Trade Commission enforces Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts and practices, and is guided by the Green Guides (16 CFR Part 260, last revised in 2012). The Green Guides are not binding rules in themselves. They explain how the FTC is likely to view claims such as ‘recyclable’, ‘compostable’, or ‘carbon offset’, and they warn against unqualified general claims. The FTC began reviewing the Green Guides in December 2022, and, to our knowledge, has not yet adopted a revised version. Much of the litigation in the US is driven by state law (for example, California’s rules on recyclability claims) and by consumer class actions.

United Kingdom

The Competition and Markets Authority’s Green Claims Code (2021) includes six principles stating that claims must: be truthful, be clear, not omit material information, make fair comparisons, consider the full lifecycle, and be substantiated. The UK’s original transposition of the UCPD, The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, was replaced from 6 April 2025 by Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. The CMA can now find infringements and impose fines directly, of up to 10% of global turnover, without going to court.

Comparative takeaways

 
For businesses operating in several markets, the EU rules are now the strictest benchmark. A ‘carbon neutral’ claim that can be defended in the US may be prohibited in Milan, Paris, or Berlin. The practical answer is a single global claims policy built on EU standards and adapted locally where needed.

Practical recommendations for businesses

Structuring and documenting environmental claims

• Take an inventory of every environmental claim, including packaging, websites, social media, trademarks, and product names. The legal definition expressly covers brand and product names.
• Replace generic wording with specific, quantified claims such as ‘packaging made from 70% recycled PET’ rather than ‘eco packaging.’
• Delete product-level ‘climate neutral’ or ‘CO₂-compensated’ claims that are based on offsetting.
• Keep a substantiation file for each claim before it goes live, so you can respond to an AGCM request under Article 27(5).
• For future targets, prepare a published implementation plan with milestones and resources, and arrange periodic independent verification.

Compliance and internal audit

• Check that every sustainability label you use is based on a qualifying certification scheme or established by a public authority. Withdraw any in-house labels that are not.
• Add a green-claims checkpoint to the approval process for marketing materials.
• Run periodic audits, because claims become outdated as supply chains change.

Managing reputational and legal risk

• Plan for three types of exposure: AGCM proceedings, competitor claims under Article 2598 of the Civil Code, and collective actions.
• Consider offering commitments early in AGCM proceedings. They are not available for manifestly unfair and serious practices, so this route may be closed for blacklisted conduct.
• Prepare a crisis communication plan for allegations of greenwashing.

Coordination across functions

• Marketing: Draft claims within approved templates.
• Supply chain and ESG: Provide verified data and supplier certifications.
• Legal and compliance: Approve claims, keep the substantiation file, and monitor regulatory changes.
• Make sure that green claims in consumer marketing are consistent with sustainability reporting, because inconsistencies between the two are easy for regulators and claimants to spot.

Conclusions

Legislative Decree No. 30/2026 moves Italian law on environmental claims away from case-by-case assessment – and several common claims are now simply prohibited.

Generic claims the trader cannot back with recognized excellent environmental performance, uncertified labels, whole-product claims that rest on a single feature, and offset-based neutrality claims are banned without any test of their effect on consumers. In addition, claims about future performance must now be backed by a verifiable plan that an independent third party checks periodically. The AGCM already has experience in this area and can impose fines of up to €10 million, or up to 4% of turnover in CPC network cases.

The Green Claims Directive has stalled since June 2025. The Commission announced it would withdraw the proposal but has not done so formally. Even if the proposal never returns, scrutiny of green claims will likely keep growing through ECGT enforcement, CPC network coordinated actions and growing private litigation. The safest approach is to treat every green claim as a statement of fact that needs evidence behind it.