Greenwashing cease-and-desist warning: what should you do?

Unsubstantiated or generic environmental claims are already actionable as misleading under Section 5 UWG – through competitors and associations. Anyone advertising with “eco-friendly” or “climate-neutral” without being able to prove it already risks a warning letter today, even without any new EU rules.

From 27 September 2026 the situation tightens considerably: the EmpCo Directive (EU 2024/825) then applies EU-wide. Germany implements it via the Third Act Amending the UWG, published in the Federal Law Gazette on 19 February 2026. Generic environmental claims without proof move onto the “blacklist” of commercial practices that are always unfair – the chances of a warning letter succeeding rise, and the recipient’s room for argument shrinks.

Case law has already moved ahead: the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has ruled (judgment of 27 June 2024 – I ZR 98/23) that the ambiguous term “climate-neutral” may only be used in advertising if it is clearly explained in the advertising itself. And enforcement is following – the Italian competition authority AGCM fined Shein €1 million for misleading environmental claims, and a German court banned Apple’s “carbon neutral” advertising for the Apple Watch at first instance. Which fines apply in the EU is covered in detail in the case overview.

A competition-law warning letter typically contains three things: a description of the alleged infringement (the specific environmental claim and where it appears), a pre-formulated cease-and-desist declaration with a contractual penalty, and a deadline within which you are expected to respond.

A fee note is usually attached: the warning party demands reimbursement of its legal fees (Section 13(3) UWG). The exact amount depends on the individual case. Economically more significant than the warning costs is usually the cease-and-desist declaration itself – a later breach of the signed declaration regularly triggers a contractual penalty; for small businesses, Section 13a UWG sets limits.

To put the magnitudes in perspective: the warning letter is the milder instrument – and in Germany the normal enforcement route. Regulatory fines of up to 4% of annual turnover in the member states concerned come into play for widespread infringements with an EU dimension; injunctions, reputational damage and the obligation to correct or withdraw the contested advertising add to this.

The Reddit question “Got an Abmahnung for ‘klimaneutral’ – what now?” captures the typical moment of shock. This approach has proven itself – it does not replace legal review, but it prevents the most common mistakes:

• •Note the deadline and take it seriously: warning-letter deadlines are short. Letting them lapse risks a preliminary injunction – and significantly higher costs.
• •Do not sign anything prematurely: the attached cease-and-desist declaration is, in case of doubt, broader than the infringement requires. Whether and in what form it is submitted belongs in legal counsel.
• •Document the contested claim: save a screenshot with date and URL before changing anything – you need that state for the legal assessment.
• •Clarify the evidence question: is there robust, verifiable proof for the claim? Without evidence the defence is weak; proof must be in place before a claim goes online.
• •Check the rest of the website: whoever finds one contestable claim usually finds more. A systematic check of all pages prevents the follow-up warning.

To gauge how likely a warning letter is, look not only at the courts but at the public that reports violations. The greenwashing discussion is huge – it just rarely runs under the term “EmpCo”: in r/Anticonsumption the thread “What are some examples of greenwashing you’ve seen?” collects over 270 comments, in r/ZeroWaste more than 530 commenters discuss why the sustainability community fundamentally distrusts manufacturer claims, and in r/science a study was discussed under the headline that 98% of the environmental claims examined were misleading greenwashing.

This scepticism is the breeding ground on which competitors and associations find violations: what consumers publicly flag as greenwashing is easy for a warning party to exploit. The more visibly a brand advertises with green claims, the more closely the other side looks.

The real cause of a greenwashing warning is rarely bad intent, but a lack of overview: environmental claims accumulate over years on product pages, landing pages and in the shop – and nobody knows any more what is written where. Yet the rules apply to all claims that are public from the cut-off date, including legacy content.

Three building blocks reduce the risk permanently:

• •Inventory: record all environmental claims on the website, packaging and in the online shop – including labels and product copy. Which advertising terms are banned from 2026 provides the checklist.
• •Formulate claims legally: remove generic claims or back them with evidence. Concrete permitted vs. banned formulations show what that looks like.
• •Establish an approval process: have every green claim jointly approved by marketing, legal and sustainability before it goes live.

Manually, several departments read the website page by page, collect claims and match them against evidence – an effort that can quickly reach five figures. This is exactly the groundwork the EmpCo Audit takes over: it identifies critical claims with their exact location and rule reference and delivers a prioritised, evidence-focused list on which the final legal review can build.

The audit does not replace the lawyer – it replaces the weeks of manual groundwork before. After a warning letter it provides, within hours, the complete overview you need for the response and for cleaning up the rest of the website.

Can I be sued or receive a cease-and-desist warning for an “eco-friendly” claim?

Yes. Unsubstantiated or generic environmental claims are already actionable as misleading under Section 5 UWG (German Act against Unfair Competition) – through competitors and associations. From 27 September 2026, the EmpCo transposition in the UWG tightens this further. Evidence must be in place before the claim goes online.

Who may issue a warning letter for greenwashing?

Warning letters can be issued by competitors and associations. The basis is the German Act against Unfair Competition (UWG): misleading environmental claims violate Section 5 UWG, and from 27 September 2026 the bans added to the UWG via the EmpCo Directive apply in addition.

What penalties apply for breaching the EmpCo Directive?

Besides cease-and-desist warnings and injunctions, widespread infringements with an EU dimension can trigger fines of up to 4% of annual turnover in the member states concerned. Real cases show the scale: Shein was fined €1 million for misleading environmental claims, and a German court banned Apple’s “carbon neutral” advertising for the Apple Watch at first instance.

Do I also have to review old website pages and legacy content?

Yes. The rules apply to all claims that are public from the cut-off date – including legacy pages, product copy and landing pages that have grown over years. This is exactly the core problem: most companies do not know what is written on hundreds of their own pages. An automated audit provides a complete overview within hours.

Is “climate-neutral” still allowed from 2026?

Yes, but only under strict conditions. From 27 September 2026, the generic product claim “climate-neutral” is banned if it rests solely on carbon offsetting. Claims based on actual emission reductions in the value chain that are verifiably substantiated remain permitted. The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has already ruled that “climate-neutral” may only be used in advertising if the term is clearly explained in the advertising itself.