Sustainable
and CO₂-neutral
misleading.
Sustainable
and CO₂-neutral
misleading.
of
Can an online retailer advertise its shipping as “CO₂-neutral” if the parcel service provider used only delivers CO₂-reduced?
Is it sufficient for legally compliant sustainability advertising for a company to be environmentally conscious in some way? What specifically do companies need to bear in mind when advertising with terms such as “sustainable” or “regional” on their website?
What is it about?
A company that sells refurbished mobile devices – so-called refurbished smartphones and tablets – on the internet advertised two sustainability promises on its website: Firstly, it claimed to handle “CO₂-neutral” shipping. In reality, however, the parcel service provider used only offered CO₂-reduced and not CO₂-neutral shipping. Secondly, the company presented itself on its homepage with the slogan “Sustainable & regional” without explaining what this actually meant. An association for combating unfair competition issued a cease and desist letter to the company. When the company did not issue a cease-and-desist declaration, a lawsuit was filed.
Legal background
Sustainability advertising is a booming marketing trend. Numerous companies adorn their products and services with promises such as “climate-neutral”, “CO₂-neutral” or “sustainable”. However, such terms are often legally tricky as greenwashing. Competition law requires such advertising to be truthful and not misleading. Environmental advertising is subject to strict requirements regarding the accuracy, unambiguity and clarity of environmental claims. Ambiguous environmental terms must be explained clearly within the advertising itself.
The decision
The Bochum Regional Court upheld the action with Judgment of 16.12.2025 – Ref. 19 O 24/25 in its entirety. With regard to the claim of CO₂-neutral shipping, the court stated that this statement constitutes an untrue statement about the service because the partner’s shipping service actually used is only CO₂-reduced – but not CO₂-neutral. The court did not accept the company’s argument that it was clear to everyone that transportation without CO₂ emissions was not possible. Rather, the claim was likely to create the misconception among at least some customers that shipping is actually CO₂-neutral. In this context, the court emphasized that climate protection is an important decision-making factor for many consumers when making a purchase.
The slogan “Sustainable & regional” was also classified as misleading. The court followed the Federal Court of Justice’s case law on ambiguous environmental terms and found that such a combination lacked the necessary explanation in the advertising itself.
The pair of terms “sustainable & regional” is environmentally related because “sustainable” refers to the conservation of resources and “regional” is associated with avoiding long transportation routes, for example. However, what is meant here by the combination of both terms is not explained.
What does this mean for companies?
The decision is further proof that greenwashing advertising is now being consistently pursued. This has concrete consequences for companies. Firstly, sustainability claims must correspond to the actual reality: Anyone claiming to be “CO₂-neutral” must actually be able to prove it. CO₂-reduced and CO₂-neutral are not the same thing, and this difference is not readily apparent to the average consumer. Secondly, ambiguous environmental terms need to be explained in the advertising itself. A clarification of terms on another subpage or in the general terms and conditions is not sufficient. Thirdly, companies should critically check their entire online communication for such formulations – including older texts on the website.
Scrutiny by competition associations has increased. Cease and desist letters and lawsuits due to misleading sustainability advertising are no longer a rarity.
Stricter legal situation from September 2026 due to the EmpCo Directive
The already strict requirements for environmental advertising will be made even stricter by the EmpCo Directive, which comes into force on 27.09.2026. From this date, general environmental claims such as “green” or “climate-friendly” may only be used with proof of recognized outstanding environmental performance. Private sustainability labels without sufficient certification will then be prohibited. Claims such as “climate-neutral” or “CO₂-neutral” will be prohibited at product level in future if this neutrality is only achieved through the purchase of CO₂ certificates. Slogans such as “Sustainable & regional” would also be inadmissible under the future legal situation without a reliable basis, as the term “sustainable” may then only be used if a recognized outstanding environmental performance can be proven.
Received a cease and desist letter?
How to react
You are best advised to
cease and desist letter!
A cease and desist letter, e.g. for infringement of competition law, industrial property rights or copyright, should always be taken seriously, as it can have considerable legal and financial consequences.
Timely and professional advice is crucial in order to minimize risks and develop the right strategy.
- Check cease and desist letter: Have the cease and desist letter legally checked. Not every cease and desist letter is justified, formally correct and abusive cease and desist letters are unlawful.
- Observe the deadline: Be sure to respond within the set deadline to avoid further legal action such as an injunction or a lawsuit.
- Check the cease-and-desist declaration: Do not sign a pre-formulated cease-and-desist declaration without legal advice. It could be too far-reaching and lead to considerable and lasting disadvantages. Once a cease-and-desist declaration has been signed, it is almost impossible to get rid of it and can result in considerable follow-up costs in the form of high contractual penalties.
- Strategy: Regardless of whether the cease and desist letter is justified or not, you should consider the right strategy for responding to the cease and desist letter with professional support. Many aspects play a role here. For example, there may be formal errors or the submission of a cease-and-desist declaration may involve incalculable risks.
Conclusion
The ruling by the Bochum Regional Court shows once again that greenwashing violates competition law. The argument that consumers are aware of the impossibility of completely CO₂-free transportation basically proves that such statements cannot be true.
In a world in which environmental promises are becoming increasingly important as a purchasing decision factor, this is logical. Companies are well advised to make their sustainability communication legally compliant and to prepare for the upcoming legal situation.
We are happy to
advise you about
Competition law!
