On 27 September 2026, the new provisions of the German Act Against Unfair Competition (Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb, “UWG”) implementing the stringent requirements of the EU’s EmpCo Directive (Empowering Consumers Directive (EU) 2024/825) will take effect (see also our article). The new provisions impose substantially stricter requirements for environmental and sustainability advertising, introducing broad prohibitions on generic environmental claims, stringent conditions for the use of environmental and sustainability labels, and stricter rules for advertising future environmental performance. There is no transitional or grace period and no grandfathering of existing products. Companies must therefore promptly review their current practices and, where necessary, take corrective action.
I. Immediate review: Key priorities ahead of 27 September 2026
Priority should be given to particularly visible communications and materials that are resource-intensive to revise – especially product packaging, ongoing marketing campaigns, and core brands and brand messages. At the same time, companies should carry out a systematic review of their overall corporate communications based on the following key questions:
- Inventory: What environmental and sustainability claims, brand names, product names, slogans, logos, packaging, labels, and social media content are currently being used? Automated solutions such as Gleiss Lutz’s Greenwashing Detector can assist with large-scale reviews of corporate communications (e.g. websites, product catalogues, and other published materials) by delivering a preliminary AI-based analysis of the scope of relevant content and potential risks.
- Compliance: What specific environmental or sustainability performance is being advertised in each case? Does the claim relate to the product as a whole, a component, the packaging, or a particular stage of the manufacturing process? Can this specific claim be substantiated?
- Risk reduction: Generic environmental claims should either be removed or clearly and prominently specified on the same medium. A link or QR code on the packaging directing consumers elsewhere for clarification will not suffice.
- Documentation: Each claim should be backed up by studies, certificates, lifecycle analyses, test results and calculations and documented in a readily accessible way. In the case of labels, companies also need to assess and document the basis for the label (a recognised certification scheme or establishment by a public authority) and the publicly available criteria. They must also check that the scheme is open to all companies, and that independent monitoring arrangements are in place.
- Decision-making processes: Are the marketing, product management, packaging, ESG, sales and legal/compliance departments involved in a structured, documented approval process that allows rapid implementation of changes if required?
- Awareness: Are clear internal guidelines on EmpCo compliance in place? Do the departments involved require training or awareness-building measures?
II. Key provisions
The new provisions focus on generic environmental claims such as “environmentally friendly”, “green”, “eco-friendly”, “climate friendly”, “energy efficient”, “biodegradable” or “biobased”. These claims will generally be permitted only if recognised excellent environmental performance can be demonstrated. This can essentially only be done by compliance with the EU Ecolabel or an EN ISO 14024 type I environmental label (e.g. Germany’s Blue Angel), or by the highest environmental performance class established under other applicable EU law. The requirements in this regard are very strict.
The decisive factor is whether the environmental label in question provides substantive support for the specific environmental claim being made. For example, the EU Ecolabel for lubricants may justify an “environmentally friendly” claim, but will not support a “biobased” claim unless the relevant criteria were specifically assessed. Other regulatory options for demonstrating compliance under EU law are similarly narrow: only true top-tier environmental performance qualifies. Complying with minimum legal requirements or regulatory thresholds is not sufficient. In the case of energy-efficiency ratings, for example, only the highest classification, class A, can be used to support an “energy efficient” claim. It should also be borne in mind that generic claims such as “sustainable,” “conscious,” or “fair” generally cannot be justified based on recognised excellent environmental performance, as such generic claims do not align with the purely environmental criteria underlying the relevant certification schemes.
Practical takeaway: Environmental claims that are specified in clear and prominent terms on the same medium are not considered to be generic claims. For example, instead of referring to “climate-friendly packaging”, a company could specify that all energy used in the manufacturing process is derived from renewable sources. Merely providing further details through a link or QR code on the packaging is not enough. Whether a claim is regarded as a generic environmental claim or as having been sufficiently specified depends on its wording, placement and overall design.
The environmental benefit claimed must not be overstated. If the benefit applies only to the packaging or a specific component of the product, it must not be attributed to the entire product. Similarly, a single sustainability measure must not be used as evidence of the environmental impact of the company as a whole.
Product advertising based on environmental benefits (such as “climate neutral”, “CO2 neutral” or “climate compensated”) is prohibited if the neutral, reduced or positive impact on the climate is based on the offsetting of greenhouse gases, for example through certificates or reforestation projects. Companies may however still advertise their investments in such offsetting initiatives, provided that they do so transparently and do not present them as evidence of the ecological footprint of an individual product.
Sustainability labels and comparable logos will only be permitted if they are established by public authorities or are based on a certification scheme that has publicly available criteria, is open to companies and is subject to independent monitoring. As a rule, purely proprietary company “eco-labels” will not generally meet these requirements.
Future-oriented claims such as “climate neutral by 2030” or “net zero by 2040” remain possible, but only if they are backed by clear, objective, publicly available and verifiable commitments. These must be set out in a realistic plan that includes measurable and time-bound targets and that is regularly verified by way of an independent third-party review whose findings are made available to the public.
The EmpCo Directive also covers social characteristics and circularity aspects, imposing new or stricter obligations regarding durability, reparability and recyclability, as well as prohibitions on misleading claims about product lifespan and certain practices relating to software updates.
Despite all the challenges associated with implementation, the EmpCo Directive also offers practical advantages: clearer rules will replace the previous case-by-case approach developed by the courts, enabling companies to plan claims and marketing campaigns with greater confidence. Harmonised EU-wide standards will create a level playing field, reducing the need for companies operating in multiple Member States to navigate a patchwork of differing national requirements. Greater planning certainty is another key benefit. Companies that comply with the new requirements will be able to use their sustainability communications as a competitive advantage, while many others may no longer be able to make such claims. Consumers also stand to benefit from more transparent information, helping to reinforce confidence in credible sustainability claims.
III. What types of communication are affected?
The new provisions primarily cover commercial practices aimed at promoting sales to consumers. Particular attention should therefore be paid to packaging and labels, websites and online shops, advertising, social media and point-of-sale materials. This may also affect manufacturers operating in a B2B2C context.
And it’s not just about words: images, symbols, colours and overall design may all be used to convey an environmental claim or sustainability label. Brand and product names containing terms such as “green”, “eco” or “natural” or any other environmental claims are also covered; trademark protection does not remove the need to assess compliance with the rules governing environmental advertising. For owners of “green” trademarks, this may create tension between the obligation to use the trademark under trademark law and restrictions on its use under unfair competition law: while regular use is necessary to avoid losing trademark protection, the mark may be regarded as an impermissible environmental claim under the new rules unless appropriate qualifying information is provided, for example.
Mandatory sustainability reporting, including reporting under the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), is typically intended for investors and is generally outside the scope of these rules. However, if claims drawn from such reporting are used in advertising that is also (but not necessarily specifically) directed at consumers, they must comply with the requirements of the UWG. The same applies, for example, to sustainability reports that are publicly accessible on a company’s website.
IV. What happens to packaging and products that have already been manufactured?
There is no grace period. As of 27 September 2026, the new rules will also apply to claims and sustainability labels used on products that were manufactured or marketed prior to that date. Although the German Bundestag urged the Federal Government to seek the introduction of a sell-off period, no such transitional arrangement has been adopted yet. Companies should therefore not rely on being able to continue selling products in existing packaging after the effective date.
Companies are not necessarily required to destroy or fully repackage existing stock. Depending on the nature of the claim and the packaging design, compliance may be achieved through over-stickering, re-labelling, additional point-of-sale disclosures or new packaging. Whether these measures are sufficient will depend on the overall impression created in the specific case.
Act now: Identify existing stock and products already in the supply chain, assess whether they can be sold before the deadline, and prepare corrective measures for any problematic claims.
V. What are the risks of non-compliance?
From a practical perspective, the greatest risk is cease-and-desist letters or injunction proceedings brought by competitors or associations. A preliminary injunction can force companies to make unscheduled changes to packaging, advertising materials and online content, often within tight deadlines and at substantial cost. Companies may face particular challenges where long-established packaging designs, core brand elements and extensive advertising campaigns are concerned.
The use of non-compliant claims or labels may also give rise to contractual remedies, including claims for damages. Companies may also face fines of up to EUR 50,000, or up to 4% of annual revenue if this exceeds EUR 1.25 million. In certain circumstances, non-compliance may even give rise to criminal consequences.
VI. Conclusion
With the effective date fast approaching, companies are well advised to act swiftly. A structured assessment of current materials, clear lines of responsibility and a disciplined prioritisation process can substantially reduce exposure to enforcement action. Those who adopt a wait-and-see approach, in contrast, risk facing costly proceedings and the need for stopgap solutions at short notice. Taking a proactive approach will not only ensure compliance, but can also provide a competitive advantage over less prepared market participants.
Forward
