Greenwashing fines in the EU: up to 4% of annual turnover – the cases

The sanctions for misleading environmental advertising range from private enforcement to regulatory fines. Breaches of the EmpCo rules can trigger:

• •Cease-and-desist warnings from competitors and associations – already today based on Section 5 UWG (misleading practices), from 27 Sep 2026 additionally based on the EmpCo transposition in the UWG. In Germany, this is the normal enforcement route.
• •Injunction lawsuits if no cease-and-desist declaration is submitted.
• •Regulatory fines of up to 4% of annual turnover in the member states concerned – for widespread infringements with an EU dimension (coordinated enforcement under the CPC Regulation; in Germany Section 19 UWG, with the Federal Office of Justice among the competent authorities).
• •The obligation to correct or withdraw the contested advertising – including packaging, campaigns and website content.
• •Reputational damage, which is disproportionately severe for sustainability topics: whoever is caught greenwashing loses exactly the audience the green claims were meant to win.

Three prominent recent proceedings show that the 4% threat is not theoretical – each stands for a different type of violation.

The EmpCo Directive (Directive (EU) 2024/825, “Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition”) has been in force since March 2024. It amends two existing EU frameworks – the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (2005/29/EC) and the Consumer Rights Directive (2011/83/EU) – and bans misleading environmental claims and unsubstantiated sustainability labels in advertising to consumers.

EU member states must transpose the directive into national law by 27 March 2026; the rules apply bindingly from 27 September 2026. A common source of confusion: for the Green Claims Directive – the separate, more detailed proposal with an ex-ante verification system – the European Commission announced its withdrawal in June 2025; the procedure has been on hold since. EmpCo is unaffected; the greenwashing ban arrives via EmpCo rather than via the Green Claims Directive.

What makes the cases additionally costly: they are litigated in public. The Apple case generated Reddit threads with well over a hundred comments – across r/apple, r/EU_Economics and r/BuyFromEU (“Germany says Apple can’t claim Apple Watch is carbon neutral”, 160+ comments). The debate reaches exactly the affluent, sustainability-minded audience the green claims were originally aimed at.

For the risk assessment this means: even if proceedings end mildly, the public verdict of “caught greenwashing” remains – and unlike an advertising claim, it cannot be withdrawn.

EmpCo affects all companies that market products or services to consumers in the EU – regardless of sector, company size or place of establishment. Unlike the CSRD, there is no general SME exemption: the rules attach to the claim, not to the balance-sheet total.

For smaller companies the warning-letter risk is often more relevant than the fine: a single unsubstantiated phrase on a product page is enough of an attack surface – and the cases show that competitors and associations actively pursue the topic.

The common denominator of all cases: the contested claims were publicly visible and had grown over a long time – on product pages, in campaigns, in the shop. Most companies do not know what is written on hundreds of their own pages. That is exactly where the risk begins.

Manually, several departments read the website page by page and match claims against evidence – an effort that can quickly reach five figures. An automated EmpCo Audit takes over this groundwork: it identifies critical claims with their exact location and rule reference and delivers a prioritised list on which the final legal review can build. How manual and automated website checking compare in detail is covered in its own article; for actively rewriting copy, see permitted vs. banned statements with examples.

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, Armani €3.5 million for misleading ethics claims, and a German court banned Apple’s “carbon neutral” advertising for the Apple Watch at first instance.

Does EmpCo also apply to small companies?

Yes. Unlike the CSRD, the EmpCo advertising rules contain no general SME exemption. Anyone making environmental claims in advertising or on their website is affected – regardless of company size. The rules attach to the claim, not to the balance-sheet total.

Which advertising terms are specifically banned from 2026?

Banned are generic, unsubstantiated environmental claims such as “climate-neutral”, “green”, “sustainable”, “eco-friendly”, “eco” or “biodegradable” where no recognised, verifiable proof exists. Also banned: self-invented sustainability labels without independent certification and misleading claims about durability (planned obsolescence).

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.

Was the Green Claims Directive withdrawn – what applies now?

This is often confused. For the Green Claims Directive (the separate proposal with an ex-ante verification system) the European Commission announced its withdrawal in June 2025; the procedure has been on hold since. The EmpCo Directive (EU 2024/825) is unaffected, already adopted, and applies from 27 September 2026. The greenwashing ban is coming – just via EmpCo instead of the Green Claims Directive.