SAF Advertising
by Lufthansa
Unfair.
SAF Advertising
by Lufthansa
Unfair.
of
Can an airline advertise an immediate reduction in flight emissions if the fuel it purchased will not be used until months later somewhere in its route network? The Cologne Higher Regional Court has halted Lufthansa’s SAF advertising and made it clear that when it comes to environmental claims, it is not only the content that matters, but also the timing of the information.
How Lufthansa Promoted More Sustainable Flying
In competition law, environmental claims boil down to one key question: Do consumers receive all the information essential to their purchasing decision in a timely manner? On its booking page, Lufthansa promoted two options under the heading “Fly More Sustainably Now.” Customers could make their flights more environmentally friendly. First, for an additional fee, they could offset CO2 emissions by contributing to climate protection projects. Second, Lufthansa promised to reduce flight-related CO2 emissions directly during the booking process. This was to be made possible through the use of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF).
Passengers did not find out until late in the booking process when the fuel they had paid extra for would actually be used. The information was hidden behind an inconspicuously placed link to frequently asked questions. There, Lufthansa explained that it calculates each passenger’s fuel consumption. The same amount of SAF would then be used on future flights. In addition, the airline promised to incorporate the purchased SAF into its flight operations within six months of the respective flight.
The German Environmental Aid Association (Deutsche Umwelthilfe) took legal action against Lufthansa over this advertisement . The Cologne Regional Court fully upheld the lawsuit in its ruling of March 21, 2025, Case No. 84 O 29/24. Both the advertising claiming carbon offsets and the advertising promoting the use of SAF were prohibited. Lufthansa filed an appeal against this ruling.
How did the parties justify their positions?
The German Environmental Aid Association (DUH) deemed the advertising for SAF to be misleading. Customers were either left in the dark about when it would be used or informed too late. Furthermore, the advertising gave the impression that the flight they had just booked would be lower in emissions.
Lufthansa countered this argument. It argued that the phrase “Fly more sustainably now” clearly refers only to the option of purchasing carbon offsets during the booking process. The overall context of the advertisement does not indicate that SAF will be used specifically on the booked flight. The only decisive factor is that the purchased SAF is actually used and that the advertised reduction is thereby achieved.
Cologne Higher Regional Court Halts the SAF Advertisement
The Cologne Higher Regional Court dismissed Lufthansa’s appeal in its ruling dated July 8, 2026—Case No. 6 U 68/25. During the oral hearing, Deutsche Umwelthilfe had previously withdrawn its motion regarding compensation advertising. To that extent, the lawsuit was dismissed. Otherwise, the ban on SAF advertising remained in effect.
Why does the timing matter?
In the Senate’s view, Lufthansa has provided sufficient information on how the CO2 reduction through SAF is technically achieved. However, the airline has failed to answer the question that is crucial from the consumer’s perspective. Exactly when this occurs remains unclear.
Based on this, while the defendant has provided sufficient information regarding the nature and method of CO2 reduction through the use of SAF, it has failed to answer the crucial question of exactly when this reduction will take place.
The court justified this decision by citing refueling practices at airports. Customers typically infer from this that a purchased carbon offset applies to the specific flight they have booked. In fact, however, the paid SAF flows into an accounting system that is decoupled from the individual flight in terms of time and location. It is used at some point within six months on any flight operated by the airline. Although this information was included in the frequently asked questions, it was provided too late and placed in an inappropriate location. A consumer would have to click on a link that was barely highlighted in color. The relevant information was only found on a secondary level of the website. Given the particularly suggestive power of environmental claims, this is insufficient.
Where was the line drawn with other SAF advertisements?
The Senate expressly distinguished this case from a ruling by the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf. In that case, a sister company of Lufthansa had used a similar statement in its advertising ( judgment of December 4, 2025, Case No. 20 U 38/25). It calculated individual fuel consumption and used the required amount of SAF for future flights operated by the group. The Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court considered this direct explanation to be sufficient. Consumers’ right to information was thus satisfied. In the present case, however, there was no similarly direct explanation.
For companies in all industries, this provides clear guidance. Essential information regarding an environmental claim must be included in the claim itself or displayed immediately next to it. A link labeled “FAQ” is not sufficient for this purpose.
A Stance Against Greenwashing
This ruling is one of a growing number of judgments that critically examine advertising containing environmental and climate claims from the perspective of greenwashing. The Cologne Higher Regional Court had already ruled against a subsidiary of the defendant in 2024. The claim that travel is “CO2-neutral” was deemed misleading. Other courts have also recently taken issue with environmental claims. For example, the Frankfurt am Main Regional Court prohibited Apple from advertising its smartwatches as CO2-neutral because the underlying offset projects were not secured for a sufficiently long term.
The Senate did, however, set a limit on the scope of the disclosure requirement. It emphasized that the requirements for environmental advertising should not be overstretched. Starting September 27, 2026, the stricter provisions of the EmpCo Directive will also apply in Germany. This directive subjects blanket environmental claims and compensation advertising to additional substantiation requirements.
Conclusion
Anyone who advertises an immediate reduction in emissions must also clearly communicate when that reduction will take place. This information should not require a time-consuming search to find. For companies in all industries, this means scrutinizing their advertising claims more closely. In the future, it will not only be the truthfulness of these claims that matters, but also their temporal accuracy.
The critical question remains: how far can this line be drawn in practice? The Senate itself emphasizes that the requirements for providing information should not be overstretched. In this specific case, however, it draws the line quite narrowly. Even a single additional click to an FAQ page is considered a delay here. It remains to be seen where the line between sufficient and insufficient information architecture will lie in the future.
We’d be happy to
advise you on
Competition law!
