\n<\/p>\n
One company who found themselves under fire for alleged \u201cgreenwashing\u201d was Coca-Cola.<\/p>\n
In October 2024<\/a>, LA County in the United States brought a case against the Coca-Cola Company, alongside PepsiCo, claiming both companies had misrepresented to consumers the potential health and environmental harms of their plastic bottles. The case alleged that both companies \u201cengaged in a disinformation campaign\u201d which led consumers to believe that their plastic bottles could be reused an endless number of times and therefore offsetting their environmental impact \u2013 when in fact they could only be recycled once. In its lawsuit, LA County said that this was a \u201cmisleading and unfair business practice\u201d.<\/p>\n Following this, in November 2024 the French environmental group, France Nature Environment (\u201cFNE\u201d<\/strong>) filed a complaint against Coca-Cola Europacific Partners France for \u201cgreenwashing\u201d during the Paris 2024 Olympic Games. Coca-Cola was a key sponsor of the Olympics and was responsible for supplying drinks at the Games. The company had expressed its support for \u201cthe Games\u2019 ambitions to reduce single-use plastic\u201d. In particular, they pledged to serve more than half of their drinks at the Games in reusable plastic cups, thanks to the installation of more than 700 soda fountains and the sale of drinks in glass bottles.<\/p>\n It is alleged by FNE that the company had in fact planned for over six million of the drinks to be served from plastic bottles into reusable cups but, as a result of what they described as a \u201cwell-rehearsed choreography\u201d, consumers were unaware of this. FNE said that Coca-Cola misled consumers by pouring the drinks from plastic bottles into a reusable cup and then discarding the bottle out of sight, leading consumers to believe the drink was in an ecological container. FNE says that these practices constituted misleading commercial practices, which is an offence under the French Consumer Code.<\/p>\n Coca-Cola was not the only major corporation scrutinised last year for their potentially misleading environmental marketing, and it is clear that public interest groups are increasingly trying to hold corporations to account for their ESG credentials.<\/p>\n For example, in April 2024, German non-profit environmental and consumer protection association, Deutsche Umwelthilfe, brought a claim in Frankfurt against Apple Distribution International Ltd (\u201cApple\u201d<\/strong>), for misleadingly promoting three models of its Apple Watch as \u201cCO2-neutral\u201d. \u00a0Deutsche Umwelthilfe allege that Apple\u2019s carbon neutral assertion could only be achieved through so-called \u201ccompensation projects\u201d, but in practice, there was limited information available as to what these projects would actually entail and how they supported Apple\u2019s purported sustainability. Whilst this case currently focuses on the marketing for these watches, Deutsche Umwelthilfe is also critical of Apple\u2019s wider marketing practices. In February 2025, a similar claim was brought by individuals against Apple in California, USA. This claim similarly alleges that marketing surrounding the Series 9, SE and Ultra 2 Apple Watches, which states they are \u201ccarbon neutral\u201d and \u201cenvironmentally friendly\u201d, amounts to false advertising. The claim adds that the basis for Apple\u2019s assertions are projects in Kenya and China that the company supports. However, the effectiveness of these projects are challenged \u2013 and therefore the legitimacy of Apple\u2019s subsequent claims. The plaintiffs allege that consumers would not have purchased the watches had they known \u201cthe truth\u201d.<\/p>\n The focus on airlines and allegations of greenwashing also continued in 2024, first in March, when a Court in Amsterdam upheld the successful claim brought by Dutch NGO \u2018Fossielvrij NL\u2019 against KLM for misleading customers with vague environmental claims. Then, in October 2024, a complaint was lodged with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (\u201cACCC\u201d<\/strong>) by the Environment Defenders Officers (an Australian environmental litigation NGO) against Qantas Airways Ltd (\u201cQantas\u201d<\/strong>). The ACCC was asked to investigate whether statements made by Qantas about the sustainability of its business and its plan to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 were in breach of Australian consumer law.<\/p>\n Last year also saw an increased focus on businesses operating in the financial sector:<\/p>\n It is clear from the growth in actions in 2024, that there is a continuing trend to scrutinise corporates for their ESG claims and practices. For example, in February 2025 F\u00e9d\u00e9ration Romande des Consommateurs (\u201cFRC\u201d<\/strong>), a Swiss consumer group, filed a claim with a prosecutor in Zurich regarding sports brand \u201cOn\u201d. The complaint alleged that On\u2019s marketing slogan, \u201cRun. Recycle. Repeat\u201d, linked to its \u2018Cyclon\u2019 programme, was misleading. The Cyclon programme allows consumers to \u2018subscribe\u2019 to a pair of shoes, instead of buying them. Subscribers can exchange the shoes for a new pair once they are worn out, on the understanding the shoes will be recycled. FRC claim that On had not recycled any shoes. On responded to say it was recycling the shoes in batches, to ensure efficiency.<\/p>\n 2025 also saw the Italian Competition Authority, AGCM, fine logistics company, GLS, 8 million euros for unfair commercial practices regarding its environmental sustainability programme \u2018Climate Protect\u2019. It was found that most subscribers of GLS were required to sign up to the Climate Protect programme, at an expense, but the programme lacked transparency, was difficult to verify and carbon offset certificates were \u201cmisleading, ambiguous and\/or false\u201d. The GLS case provides another example of a company\u2019s assertions regarding carbon offsetting being challenged and shows why businesses need to be absolutely sure statements can be robustly supported.<\/p>\n Finally, in March 2025 the \u2018Citizen\u2019s Arrest Network\u2019 sought to utilise the \u2018citizen\u2019s arrest\u2019 power against energy company and Thames Water executives, alleging they had committed offences of public nuisance (an offence under s.78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022). The power of citizens (i.e. non-constables) to arrest others is enshrined in s.24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It is not a new power however and is subject to a number of important caveats. This includes, but is not limited to, the inability to use it for any non-indictable offences (the most serious kind), the requirement that it appears to the person making the arrest that it is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make it instead and the need for the person to have reasonable grounds for believing the arrest was necessary (for one of four statutory reasons). The threshold is relatively high to overcome and the power is not routinely used. Failing to meet the required standards means that any such arrest would be unlawful.<\/p>\n The UK has, to date, had powers to hold businesses to account for misleading commercial practices, in particular The Consumer for Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (\u201cCPUTRs\u201d<\/strong>) \u2013 the domestic legislation which implemented the EU\u2019s Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 2005\/29\/EC).<\/p>\n From 6 April 2025 however, key sections of the new Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act comes into force. This legislation is significant in many respects, particularly with regards the replacement and amendment of the CPUTRs. It also provides the CMA with new direct enforcement powers allowing them to determine (without a court) whether companies have breached consumer law and issue consequent fines. These fines can, significantly, total 10% of a company\u2019s turnover.<\/p>\n Actions and changes brought about domestically, and globally, over the past year have made it abundantly clear that not only will public interest groups and individuals continue to press corporations on their greenwashing claims and sustainability credentials, but government bodies are also demonstrating greater appetite, and legislative ability, to do so too. Regardless of who brings the action however, and whether or not it succeeds, these actions can prove incredibly costly (financially and reputationally) for companies. It therefore continues to be necessary for corporations to ensure sufficient focus is applied to areas touching on ESG and avoid any misleading or inaccurate statements.<\/p>\n If you have any questions regarding this blog, please contact Sophie Wood<\/a> or\u00a0Alice Trotter<\/a><\/span>\u00a0in our\u00a0<\/span>Criminal<\/a>\u00a0team<\/a>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\u00a0<\/h2>\n
ESG scrutiny across Europe and the USA<\/h2>\n
\n
\u00a0<\/h2>\n
ESG action in 2025<\/h2>\n
\u00a0<\/h2>\n
New legislative powers<\/h2>\n
\u00a0<\/h2>\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n
\u00a0<\/h2>\n
About the authors<\/h2>\n