"Climate neutrality" greenwashing before the Federal Court of Justice.
In a groundbreaking decision, the Federal Court of Justice dealt with advertising statements regarding climate neutrality and established principles. Advertising with an ambiguous environmental term (here: "climate neutral") is regularly only permissible if the advertising itself explains the specific meaning of this term.
The Centre for Combating Unfair Competition had filed a lawsuit against the fruit gum manufacturer Katjes. Katjes advertised in a trade magazine with the statement "Katjes has been producing all products climate-neutrally since 2021". A logo showed the term "climate neutral" and referred to the website of a "ClimatePartner". However, the manufacturing process of the products themselves at Katjes is not CO2-neutral. However, the company supports climate protection projects via the "ClimatePartner". These are intended to offset the emissions generated during the actual production process.
The Federal Court of Justice considers the advertising statement made in this way to be misleading.
The Federal Court of Justice states in this regard:
The advertising complained of is .... misleading within the meaning of Section 5 (1) UWG. The advertising is ambiguous because, according to the findings of the Court of Appeal, the term "climate-neutral" can be understood by the readers of the trade journal - no differently than by consumers - both in the sense of a reduction of CO2 in the production process and in the sense of a mere compensation of CO2. The Court of Appeal did not take into account that in the area of environment-related advertising - as with health-related advertising - the risk of misleading is particularly high and that there is an increased need to inform the target public about the meaning and content of the terms and signs used. In the case of advertising that uses an ambiguous environmental term such as "climate-neutral", the specific meaning must therefore regularly be explained in the advertising itself in order to avoid misleading. Informative references outside the environmental advertising are not sufficient in this respect. An explanation of the term "climate-neutral" was necessary here in particular because the reduction and compensation of CO2 emissions are not equivalent measures for achieving climate neutrality, but the reduction takes precedence over compensation from the point of view of climate protection. The misleading statement is also relevant in terms of competition, as the advertising of a product with a supposed climate neutrality is of considerable importance for the consumer's purchasing decision.
Contact us if you have any questions
