Greenwashing enforcement is no longer theoretical. Across Europe, companies are being investigated, fined, and required to retract claims — months before the ECGT directive formally takes effect in September 2026. Here is what the enforcement landscape actually looks like, and what your business must do now.
The enforcement reality in 2026
Free automated scan — results in under 60 seconds.
The ECGT directive (Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition, Directive 2024/825) does not take formal effect until September 27, 2026. But enforcement is already happening — under existing national consumer protection laws, the EU Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, and sector-specific rules.
The pattern is consistent: regulators are building enforcement momentum now, so that on September 27, 2026, the infrastructure is ready to scale. Companies that have already been flagged once are far more likely to face ECGT sanctions when they become enforceable.
One date defines the landscape: 27 September 2026, when national rules implementing the ECGT apply in every member state. What happens after a breach is then decided by each country's consumer-protection law, which is why enforcement will not look the same in Paris, Milan and Amsterdam.
Major greenwashing enforcement cases in Europe
H&M: the "Conscious Collection" scandal
The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) investigated H&M and Decathlon in 2022-2023 for using sustainability-related terms without substantiation. H&M's "Conscious Collection" label — applied to items that were, in many cases, only marginally more sustainable than standard products — was found to mislead consumers under Dutch consumer law.
H&M was required to significantly revise its product labeling and remove unsubstantiated sustainability claims across its Dutch marketing. The ACM published the finding publicly, creating substantial reputational damage beyond the formal sanction. H&M subsequently withdrew its entire sustainability scoring system globally.
Ryanair: "lowest carbon airline" banned
The UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) banned Ryanair advertisements claiming it was "Europe's lowest carbon airline" in 2020. The ASA ruled the claim was misleading because it was based on CO2 per passenger per km — a metric that Ryanair had selected specifically because it favoured their model — without explaining this calculation to consumers.
This case established a critical precedent: comparative green claims require transparent methodology disclosure. It is not enough to have data supporting your claim. Consumers must be able to understand and verify the basis of that claim.
HSBC: climate commitments vs. fossil fuel financing
The UK ASA banned two HSBC outdoor advertisements in 2022 that highlighted the bank's climate commitments while omitting its continued significant financing of fossil fuel companies. The ruling found that the ads created a misleading impression of HSBC's overall environmental position.
The financial sector faces particular scrutiny under ECGT because of the gap between sustainability commitments in marketing and actual portfolio exposure to high-emission sectors.
Ongoing investigations: Germany, France, Sweden
German consumer protection authorities (Verbraucherzentralen) launched over 40 formal investigations into green claims between 2023 and 2025. French DGCCRF investigations have targeted fashion and food sectors. Sweden's market regulator (Konsumentverket) issued formal guidance in 2024 specifying that terms like "climate positive" and "climate neutral" require third-party certification — a de facto ban on self-declared claims.
How ECGT fines work: the 4% rule
The ECGT has no penalty article of its own. It amends the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD), so breaches are sanctioned under each member state's UCPD penalties, which Article 13 UCPD requires to be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
The 4% rule is narrower than it is usually made to sound. In coordinated cross-border actions under Article 21 of Regulation (EU) 2017/2394, national law must allow a maximum fine of at least 4% of the trader's annual turnover in the member states concerned, or at least €2 million where turnover data is unavailable. It is a floor on the ceiling in those cases, not a fine rate, and national maximums can be higher.
Beyond fines, authorities can order a practice to stop or prohibit it in advance; member states may also let them require publication of the decision and a corrective statement; and consumers can claim compensation, a price reduction or termination of the contract. Confiscation of revenues and exclusion from public procurement, often quoted alongside, came from the 2023 Green Claims Directive proposal, which the Commission announced its intention to withdraw in June 2025. They are not part of the law in force.
Country-by-country enforcement overview
| Country | Primary enforcer | Current focus | Readiness level |
|---|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | ACM (Consumer & Market Authority) | Retail, fashion, food | High — active investigations |
| UK | ASA + CMA | Finance, airlines, FMCG | High — enforcement since 2020 |
| Germany | Verbraucherzentralen + Abmahnungen | Fashion, cleaning products | High — private enforcement common |
| France | DGCCRF | Food, cosmetics, fashion | Medium — investigations increasing |
| Sweden | Konsumentverket | All sectors | High — strictest national guidance |
| Denmark | Consumer Ombudsman | Finance, energy | Medium |
The highest-risk claims right now
Based on enforcement patterns, these are the claims most likely to attract regulatory attention:
- "Carbon neutral" — unless backed by a certified, third-party verified methodology covering Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions
- "Eco-friendly" — generic claim with no accepted scientific definition; effectively banned under ECGT
- "Sustainable" without qualification — courts and regulators consistently find this too vague
- Comparative claims (e.g., "greener than competitors") — require transparent methodology disclosure
- Offsetting-based claims — "climate neutral through carbon offsets" is explicitly prohibited under ECGT Article 3
- Unverified certifications — sustainability labels not based on officially recognized certification schemes are banned
What businesses must do before September 2026
The immediate priority is a full audit of all customer-facing content — website, product descriptions, advertising materials, social media profiles, packaging copy. Any environmental claim that cannot be substantiated with specific, verifiable, third-party evidence should be removed or replaced.
Replacement language examples: "100% recycled PET plastic (GRS certified)" instead of "eco-friendly material". "Reduced-carbon packaging (18% lower than 2022 baseline, Bureau Veritas certified)" instead of "sustainable packaging". "Powered by renewable electricity (REGO certified, UK)" instead of "green energy".
Use the Green Claims Scanner to identify which terms on your website are flagged as high-risk under ECGT. The scan covers 28+ banned and restricted terms and generates a compliance report you can share with your legal team. For a full preparation checklist, see our step-by-step guide. You can also learn more about all ECGT penalties in detail and review our complete ECGT directive explainer.
The companies that will struggle most in September 2026 are those that treat ECGT compliance as a last-minute legal checkbox. The ones that will benefit are those that use the deadline as an opportunity to build genuine environmental credibility — replacing vague claims with specific, verifiable ones that actually differentiate their products.