Green Claims Under Scrutiny - Legal Consequences and Compliance Risks

A. Overview

As consumers become increasingly environmentally conscious, marketing strategies now often emphasize terms like “eco-friendly,” “green,” and “sustainable.” However, this trend also imposes significant responsibilities on companies that incorporate such claims into their communications.

B. Relevant Regulations

Article 17 of the Regulation on Commercial Advertising and Unfair Commercial Practices (“Regulation”) clearly outlines the boundaries for environmental claims, emphasizing that companies may not exploit consumer sensitivities on environmental issues or make scientific claims without academic grounding.

Deriving from this Regulation, the Ministry of Trade has issued a Guideline on Advertisements Containing Environmental Claims (“Guideline”), which provides further details. According to Article 5 of the Guideline, if a marketing tool (due to its duration, advertisement platform, or format) cannot provide all necessary information to properly inform consumers, companies are required to direct them to a platform where more detailed information can be accessed.

Additionally, marketing a feature that a product is already required to have by its nature or by regulation as though it were a special added benefit is also considered a violation. For example, the Guideline highlights that promoting phosphate-free detergents with claims such as “reduces phosphate use” may mislead consumers, given that the use of phosphate is already subject to strict legal restrictions. The Guideline also sets out specific principles for claims about biodegradability, recyclability, the use of renewable energy in production, and the use of reclaimed water.

Decisions by the Turkish Board of Advertisement provide concrete examples of violations, such as the use of phrases like “eco-friendly car loan” when the loan offers no greater environmental benefit than standard options[1]; failing to specify which product group sustainability claims refer to in advertisements featuring multiple products[2]; not directing consumers to sources of detailed information; or making broad environmental commitments without supporting scientific evidence. Such practices are considered deceptive and intended to gain unfair commercial advantage.

In fact, the Turkish Court of Cassation (the “Court”) has affirmed in a ruling that if an energy-saving claim cannot be technically verified, the burden of proof lies with the advertiser[3]. Otherwise, such claims constitute unfair competition. The Court also noted that scientific data used in advertisements must be verified by accredited institutions. These decisions make it clear that environmental advertising must not only aim to create a positive image, but also be accurate, transparent, and scientifically sound.

C. Sanctions for Non-Compliance

With the enactment of the Law on the Protection of Consumers and Amendments to Certain Laws on October 24, 2024, administrative fines for violations of advertising and unfair commercial practices have been updated. Companies engaging in unfair commercial practices can now face fines ranging from TRY 60,000 to TRY 600,000; and if the violation affects the entire country, the fine can range from TRY 600,000 to TRY 6,000,000. Moreover, those who violate advertising regulations may also be subject to fines between TRY 60,000 and TRY 22,100,000, depending on the tool in which the advertisement was published.

D. EU Regulations

On the European Union (“EU”) side, rules regarding “green” claims have also been incorporated into legislation. Under the proposed Green Claims Directive, starting from 2026, terms such as “eco-friendly,” “natural,” “biodegradable,” or “climate neutral” will be subject to strict conditions throughout the EU. Unless such claims are verified by an accredited third party, supported by a recognized EU certification system, and backed by scientific evidence covering the entire life cycle of the product, they may not be used in any product-related communication.

The EU’s more advanced legal framework in this area is no coincidence. EU-based companies have long faced legal action from civil society organizations (“NGOs”) over misleading and greenwashing-related practices.

A recent high-profile example is a case filed by Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) against Lufthansa. DUH, a German NGO, argued that the carbon offset option offered during Lufthansa’s ticket sales process was misleading. The airline claimed that passengers could offset their flight emissions through contributions to forest protection projects, among others. However, the court found that the offset options did not cover the full climate impact of the flights and misled consumers into believing that their travel was entirely climate neutral.

Importantly, legal decisions on greenwashing do not stop at banning specific advertisements. Around the world, companies have faced significant financial penalties as well. For example, Volkswagen was fined a record $34.69 billion for using software to cheat emissions tests. Toyota paid $180 million for delaying reports on emissions, and DWS was fined $25 million for marketing certain investment funds as “green” despite not meeting environmental sustainability criteria.

E. Conclusion

These developments demonstrate that environmental claims can no longer be treated merely as a marketing tool. Both domestic regulations and EU standards require companies to rigorously assess their environmental statements and ensure they are based on concrete, scientific evidence. Otherwise, any claim that risks misleading consumers can damage brand reputation and expose companies to administrative sanctions, fines, and even litigation.

Therefore, adopting a cautious and transparent approach to “green” marketing is not only a legal obligation but also a key aspect of corporate sustainability.