Paris Tribunal Holds ‘Carbon Neutral,’ ‘100% Recyclable’ Claims Constitute Misleading Commercial Practices

In a 23 June 2026 judgment, the Paris Judicial Tribunal held that the environmental claims “carbon neutral,” “certified carbon neutral,” “100% recycled,” “100% recyclable,” and “always recyclable,” appearing on packaging and plastic water bottles, constituted a misleading commercial practice. The court distinguished between carbon neutrality claims, which were liable to mislead consumers due to insufficient explanations, and recycling claims, which it found to be inaccurate. The decision is also noteworthy because the court took into account legal provisions enacted after the events at issue.

MISLEADING COMMERCIAL PRACTICES: A BRIEF OVERVIEW

Under French law, greenwashing is primarily addressed through the legal framework governing unfair commercial practices and, more specifically, the framework governing misleading commercial practices.[1]

Unfair Commercial Practices: Practices That Materially Distort or Are Likely to Materially Distort the Consumer’s Economic Behavior

Under Article L.121-1 of the French Consumer Code, unfair commercial practices (“pratiques déloyales”) are prohibited.

A commercial practice is unfair if it cumulatively

• is contrary to the requirements of professional diligence; and
• alters, or is likely to materially alter, the economic behavior of the average consumer who is reasonably informed and reasonably observant and circumspect.[2]

The article specifies that misleading commercial practices (“pratiques commerciales trompeuses”), as defined in Article L.121-2 of the same code, constitute unfair commercial practices.

Misleading Commercial Practices

A commercial practice is misleading if it is committed in any circumstance listed in Article L.121-2 of the French Consumer Code.

In its previous version applicable to the dispute, Article L.121-2 of that code classified as misleading, in particular, false or misleading claims relating to the essential characteristics of the product or the extent of the advertiser’s commitments.[3]

IN THIS CASE: CLAIMS HELD MISLEADING BECAUSE THEY WERE INSUFFICIENT OR INACCURATE

The court[4] examined in turn the claims relating to carbon neutrality and those relating to recycling.

Carbon Neutrality: Misleading Claims Due to Insufficient Explanations

In the case at hand, the court held that the claims “carbon neutral” and “certified carbon neutral” could suggest that the manufacture and marketing of the bottles generated no net greenhouse gas emissions. According to the court, carbon neutrality may be defined by the absence of emissions, the offsetting of emissions, or a hybrid approach. It therefore entails a balance between the emissions generated and the corresponding removals.[5]

The principle of offsetting involves, in particular, financing projects designed to subsequently absorb a quantity of greenhouse gases equivalent to that already emitted. The emissions generated by the manufacture of the bottles are therefore not necessarily fully offset at the time they are produced.

Accordingly, the court held that, when used alone without an asterisk or a direct cross-reference to further explanations, the aforementioned statements do not indicate the respective proportions of the emission reductions and offsets implemented or verify the claimed carbon balance.

The court concluded that “without constituting false claims in light of the above definition, the ‘carbon neutral’ or ‘certified carbon neutral’ claims are likely to mislead an average consumer relating to the product’s essential characteristics, namely its composition and its method and date of manufacture, and relating to the extent of [the advertiser’s] commitments.”[6]

Recycling: Absolute Nature of ‘100% Recycled or Recyclable’ Statement Held Inaccurate

By contrast, the statement “100% recycled,” whether used alone or in conjunction with the terms “100% recyclable” and “always recyclable,” was held to be inaccurate “such that it is unnecessary to establish that the consumer was misled.”

As regards the “100% recycled” claim, the court noted that certain components of the bottle—namely the cap, label, inks, adhesives, and handles—were not made entirely from recycled materials or were not entirely recyclable. In that regard, the judges noted that the qualification “excluding the label and cap” did not identify all of the excluded components. According to the court, “[i]t follows that the bottles are partly manufactured from recycled materials, but not entirely, such that they are partly ‘recycled’ and the use of the term ‘100%’ is improper.”

As regards the “100% recyclable” claim, the court noted that not all components of the bottle were recyclable and that the plastic body of the bottle was itself recyclable only a limited number of times.

THE SUBSTANTIAL ALTERATION OF THE CONSUMER’S ECONOMIC BEHAVIOR

In order to determine whether misleading commercial practices existed, the court was also required to determine whether the challenged practices materially altered, or were likely to materially alter, “the economic behavior of the average consumer who is reasonably informed and reasonably observant and circumspect.”[7]

In assessing this second condition, the court noted that consumers attach increasing importance to environmental impacts, the values promoted by companies and, consequently, the environmental attributes of products.

The court then held that while it had not been established that the disputed statements had been decisive in prompting the purchase of bottled water in plastic bottles generally, they had “at the very least” been decisive in the choice of the advertiser’s water bottles given the particular attention consumers pay to the polluting nature and carbon footprint of such products. The court concluded that the practices materially altered, or were likely to materially alter, the consumer’s economic behavior.

Accordingly, the judges ruled that the display on the advertiser’s packaging and water bottles of the statement “carbon neutral” or “certified carbon neutral,” “100% recycled,” “100% recyclable,” and “always recyclable” constituted a misleading commercial practice.

SANCTIONS DESPITE THE CESSATION OF THE PRACTICES

As the unlawful practices had ceased by the date on which the court handed down its judgment, the court dismissed the claims seeking their cessation as well as those seeking to prohibit the future use of the claims at issue.

However, that cessation did not preclude compensation for the damage previously caused to the collective interests of consumers. In light of the extent and seriousness of the violations, the court ordered the company to pay €75,000.

The court also ordered the judgment to be published on the homepage of the defendant’s website for a period of six months because certain websites continued to market the product using images displaying the claims at issue.[8]

SUBSEQUENT LEGAL PROVISIONS RELIED UPON

In this case the disputed practices began in October 2020, and the summons was issued one year later. Nevertheless, the court referred to several legal instruments that had not been applicable at the time of the events, without applying them retroactively.

Carbon Neutrality

The court took into account Article D.229-108 of the French Environment Code, which entered into force on January 1, 2023 and requires an advertiser making a carbon neutrality claim to publish a summary report describing the carbon footprint of the advertised product as well as the approach adopted to avoid, reduce, or offset those emissions.[9]

Recycling

The court also relied on regulatory provisions enacted after the events at issue concerning information on recyclability. Those provisions favor wording such as “product containing at least [%] recycled materials,” “mostly recyclable product,” or “mostly recyclable packaging” rather than the statement “fully recyclable.”

They further provide that the statement “fully recyclable product” may be used only where the recycling process accounts for more than 95% by mass of the waste collected.[10]

European Union Law

Most notably, the court referred to Directive (EU) 2024/825 of February 28, 2024, known as the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive, which seeks to better protect consumers against unfair commercial practices and improve the information provided to them.

The Directive added to the “blacklist” of commercial practices deemed unfair in all circumstances the act of claiming, on the basis of greenhouse gas emissions offsetting, that a product has a neutral, reduced, or positive impact on the environment in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.[11]

It should be noted that the European legislature intended the new regime to be transposed by the member states no later than March 27, 2026, with those provisions entering into force no later than September 27, 2026. Nevertheless, as of the date of the judgment, the French transposition process had not been completed.

While the court assessed the practices at issue solely under the provisions of the French Consumer Code applicable at the time of the events, it noted that those subsequent provisions “[c]onfirm, ex post, the need for caution with respect to commercial practices referring to carbon neutrality and the need to provide consumers with complete information regarding carbon neutrality claims.”

This provides a notable example of the effect of new legislation on the interpretation of earlier provisions applicable to the dispute.

A STRENGTHENED FRAMEWORK FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIMS

This decision marks a further step in the scrutiny of companies’ environmental communications and builds on a line of case law developed over the past two years, which highlights both the diversity of the claims being challenged and the increasing severity of the sanctions imposed.[12] It confirms that environmental claims are subject to particularly rigorous legal scrutiny.

The unsuccessful party has announced its intention to appeal this decision[13] and these issues will therefore be considered again by the court of appeal.

Cassiopée Gihr contributed to this LawFlash.