Greenwashing Across the Atlantic: US and French Rules for Environmental Claims

Greenwashing is drawing increased scrutiny from regulators, legislators, litigators, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), competitors, and consumers. For companies advertising in both the United States and France, environmental marketing can present material risks, though those risks differ. The US relies on a principles-based, fragmented regime driven by Federal Trade Commission (FTC) guidance, state statutes, and evolving jurisprudence. French law, by contrast, relies on statutory provisions that govern misleading commercial practices generally while prescribing how and when specific environmental terms may be used.

Companies operating in the US and France should draft to the strictest applicable law, verify compliance before launch, and ensure all teams are operating on the same set of operative facts. We recommend against making sweeping claims—particularly when made without adequate substantiation.

GREEN MARKETING AND GREENWASHING

Green marketing highlights a product’s environmental or sustainability attributes. Greenwashing arises when a company overstates those attributes or presents products, services, or business practices as more sustainable than they are. These claims generally fall under ordinary rules against misleading advertising, reinforced by environmental marketing laws and guidance.

THE SHARED CORE: CONSUMER DECEPTION, NOT CORPORATE ASPIRATION

United States: Flexible Rules, Broad Litigation Risk

US greenwashing law rests on the broad prohibition against unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The FTC’s Green Guides—first issued in 1992 and most recently revised in 2012—remain the touchstone federal guidance. They explain how consumers may understand environmental claims and how marketers should qualify and substantiate them.

Claims must be truthful, supported before publication, and not misleading, and disclosures must be clear, prominent, and tied to the headline claim. Broad claims, such as “green” or “eco-friendly,” are difficult to substantiate unless carefully limited and should therefore be avoided.

State consumer-protection statutes and private class actions add exposure. State consumer protection laws exist in all 50 states. Plaintiffs may invoke those laws to challenge product-level and corporate environmental, social, and governance (ESG) claims under a wide range of theories, including failure-to-warn, false advertising, unfair or deceptive practices, and “price premium” theories (i.e., the customer allegedly overpaid for the product based on its “green” attributes). For example, suits under those laws have targeted “clean,” “non-toxic,” “eco-friendly,” and similar claims.

Environmental claims in marketing emails may also trigger claims under the Commercial and Electronic Mail Act (CEMA), which bans companies from making false or misleading statements in the subject line of a commercial email. Given statutory penalties under CEMA and the recent explosion of CEMA class actions, prevention remains the best defense.

France: Consumer Deception Plus Claim-Specific Prohibitions

French law also starts with misleading commercial practices. A practice is misleading if it uses false or deceptive statements about essential characteristics of the product, including its environmental impact, and would alter the behavior of an observant consumer who is reasonably informed.

French law not only prohibits misleading environmental claims in general but also specifically regulates certain types of environmental statements. As discussed below, some claims are prohibited outright; others may be used only if strict legal requirements are met.

Several actors may challenge greenwashing claims in France: consumer associations and environmental NGOs are increasingly active in bringing claims; competitors frequently initiate proceedings when they believe that environmental marketing confers an unfair competitive advantage; and the French consumer protection authority, the Directorate General for Competition Policy, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control (DGCCRF), regularly conducts investigations and may initiate enforcement actions. Finally, consumers who have suffered a direct loss also may seek compensation.

Remedies may be civil or criminal. Courts may order claims discontinued and award damages; after DGCCRF investigations, companies also may face criminal investigations and significant fines, as discussed further below.

KEY DIFFERENCES AND WHY THEY MATTER

The US Is Principles-Based; France Is Increasingly Rules-Based

In the US, context drives the analysis: what would a reasonable consumer take from the full advertisement, label, website, social post, or sustainability statement? The FTC guidance illustrates this approach and the kind of substantiation required. For example, carbon-offset claims require competent and reliable scientific evidence and appropriate accounting; “non-toxic” claims require proof that the product is safe for people and the environment; and recyclable claims generally require qualification if recycling facilities are not available to a “substantial majority of consumers” (i.e., at least 60% of consumers or communities where sold[1]).

France is more categorical. French law not only prohibits misleading environmental claims in general but also specifically regulates certain types of environmental statements. Some claims (such as “biodegradable” or “environmentally friendly”) are prohibited outright. Other claims may be made only if strict legal requirements are met. For instance, the descriptor “mostly recyclable” is permitted for certain waste-generating products only if (1) the product can be effectively collected on a territory-wide basis, (2) the product can be sorted to recyclable pathways, (3) the product can be recycled on an industrial scale, (4) the product represents more than 50% by mass of the waste collected, and (5) there are no substances disrupting the recycling.[2]

Practically, a claim defensible in the U.S. may nonetheless be barred or require heavy conditioning in France. And even US-style disclaimers cannot rescue a barred French claim or necessarily satisfy France’s prescribed-disclosure regime. So, companies operating in both markets should map each claim to local rules before launch.

Carbon-Neutral and Net-Zero Claims Are Converging on Higher Scrutiny, Yet France Remains More Restrictive

In the US, the Green Guides address carbon offsets but do not create a comprehensive federal rule for “carbon neutral” or “net zero” claims. That gap leaves private litigation central. A federal court recently dismissed a lawsuit challenging a company’s marketing claims that a consumer product was “carbon neutral.” The court ultimately found that the plaintiffs did not plausibly allege that the claims were false but made clear that such claims are not categorically immune from suit where supporting evidence could move the needle in a plaintiff’s favor.

Separately, in October 2023, California enacted legislation requiring any company doing business in California that makes certain greenhouse gas (GHG)-related claims—for example, that the company has significantly reduced its GHG emissions or will be carbon-neutral or net zero in the future—to substantiate those claims on its website, including by providing the measurement and monitoring methodology used and how they plan to accomplish their stated goals. That law, the Voluntary Carbon Market Disclosures Act (AB 1305), also requires disclosure of whether the company obtained independent, third-party verification of its emissions projections. Violations may trigger potential fines of up to $2,500 per day for each day that information is not available or is inaccurate on the company’s website, up to a maximum of $500,000.

France is moving even further: the phrase “carbon neutral” is wholly prohibited unless (1) the public has ready access to a report on the product’s GHG emissions and the approach by which the product’s GHG emissions are avoided, reduced, and offset; and (2) the arrangements for offsetting residual GHG emissions are measurable, verifiable, and permanent and additional.[3]

Companies operating in both countries should distinguish actual emissions reductions from residual emissions, offsets, renewable energy instruments, corporate targets, and product-level claims.

Enforcement Exposure Is Different in Kind, Not Just Degree

US exposure is often driven by private litigation: a marketing statement can trigger a class action lawsuit without regulatory action. Recent securities-law developments do not eliminate that risk. Although the US Securities and Exchange Commission proposed rescinding its climate-related disclosure rules in May 2026, advertising and consumer-protection claims remain independently actionable under longstanding state consumer protection laws.

France adds sharper public enforcement and penal consequences. Misleading commercial practices are criminal offenses punishable, for legal entities, by up to €1,500,000, which may be increased to either (1) 10% of the average turnover (i.e., revenue) or (2) 80% of the expenses incurred in committing the offense.[4]  If the misleading environmental claim was made online or through a digital or electronic medium, the fine may be increased to €3,750,000. Legal entities may also be subject to various penalties, including a ban on engaging in certain activities.

DGCCRF remains active in this space. In its 2023–2024 greenwashing review, DGCCRF noted its inspection of more than 3,000 establishments, issued more than 430 compliance injunctions, and imposed more than 70 administrative fines or criminal reports. In July 2025, DGCCRF/French prosecutors announced a €40 million settlement fine against a fast fashion company after finding misleading price-reduction practices and unsupported environmental claims, including a claim regarding the company’s GHG reductions.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Prevention remains the best medicine. To mitigate risk, companies engaged in “green” marketing should consider the steps below.

Build an Advertising Claim Inventory

Catalogue any environmental message contained in company packaging, websites, investor pages, social media, influencer scripts, sales decks, QR-code content, customer emails, and sustainability reports. Treat imagery, seals, brand names, taglines, colors, and icons as potential claims, not just words.

Classify Claims by Risk

Escalate for legal review terms or phrases presenting significant, potential risk, including “green,” “eco-friendly,” “environmentally friendly,” “sustainable,” “responsible,” “clean,” “non-toxic,” “biodegradable,” “carbon neutral,” “net zero,” “climate positive,” “zero impact,” “recyclable,” “fully recyclable,” “plastic-free,” “natural,” and any claim using “100%,” “zero,” “best,” or “planet.” In France, scrutinize marketing for terms that are barred or tightly conditioned under French law.

Substantiate Before Launch

Maintain a “claim file” for each statement and, where required, make the relevant substantiation accessible to the consumer. A comprehensive claim file should include exact wording, media, evidence, assumptions, geographic limits, product/package distinction, supply-chain support, testing, lifecycle analysis, certifications, audits, and approvals.

For carbon claims, add other information, such as emissions boundaries, baseline year, methodology, reduction pathway, residual emissions, and offsets. Reviewing case law, particularly where there is a substantial body of decisions in a particular area, can help sharpen the analysis and enhance a company’s risk assessment.

Make Disclosures Do Real Work – But Do Not Ask Them to Do the Impossible

Disclosures should be proximate, prominent, in plain English, and tied to the triggering claim. Where required, they should explain scope, limitations, time period, geography, facility availability, and whether the claim concerns the product, packaging, service, company, or business line. They should not contradict the headline claim or attempt to “cure” a claim banned outright by French law.

Separate Product Claims from Corporate Ambition

A corporate emissions-reduction project does not make a product “greener.” A renewable energy procurement strategy does not necessarily reduce product lifecycle emissions. A net-zero target is not immune from regulatory action or private litigation merely because it is future-oriented: such claims should be tied to measurable, realistic, and documented implementation plans and interim milestones and based on a sound measurement and monitoring methodology. In sum, companies should take care when attempting to convert corporate ambition into customer-facing marketing.

Govern Marketing Like a Regulated Process

Use a cross-functional review team with representation from legal, marketing, sustainability, R&D, procurement, regulatory, and communications functions. Require agencies and influencers to avoid unapproved environmental claims. Train teams that even “aspirational” language may create litigation and regulatory risk, and archive supporting evidence and documentation for the full limitations period.

Localize or Harmonize Upward

For global campaigns, localize claims by jurisdiction to ensure compliance with applicable law, or draft to the stricter French/EU standard. The latter is often safer because digital marketing is difficult to geo-fence perfectly, and French law may apply where practices are implemented in, or produce effects in, France.

CONCLUSION

The US and French regimes share a common premise: environmental claims may not mislead consumers. The US chiefly enforces that prohibition through a litigation-driven system that is flexible, principle-based, and fact-intensive; France primarily applies it through codified, prescriptive rules, term-specific restrictions, and active enforcement with potential criminal sanctions.

Companies operating in France and the US should say only what they can actually substantiate before launch, avoid broad or offset-dependent claims unless carefully supported, make any applicable limitations clear and unmistakable, preserve substantiating records (sometimes making them accessible to the consumer), and build campaigns sufficient to withstand scrutiny from either side of the Atlantic.

Law clerk Hannah Ritter contributed to this Insight.