Green Claims in Influencer Marketing: The New Rules

Green claims in influencer marketing have been far more tightly regulated in Germany since 27 September 2026: generic environmental claims like “eco-friendly” without proven excellent environmental performance, offset-based “carbon neutral” product claims and sustainability labels without certification or a public-authority basis are banned outright in consumer advertising under the amended Unfair Competition Act (UWG) — in a creator post just as in an ad. This guide covers what is banned, where the planned Green Claims Directive stands, how to adapt briefings and approvals, which wording holds up and who is liable. It is practical guidance, not legal advice.

Green claims: what changed in September 2026

The basis is EU Directive 2024/825 of 28 February 2024, known as “Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition” (EmpCo). Germany transposed it with the Third Act Amending the UWG of 12 February 2026 (Federal Law Gazette 2026 I No. 43); most of the new rules have applied since 27 September 2026.

Three changes matter most for creator campaigns:

• A broad definition: under Section 2(2) No. 5 UWG, an environmental claim is any voluntary statement or representation attributing a positive, zero or lower environmental impact to a product, brand or company — explicitly including images, symbols, brand names and product names. A spoken line, a caption, a leaf symbol next to the product or a green globe sticker can already count.
• New blacklist entries: the annex to Section 3(3) UWG lists commercial practices towards consumers that are always prohibited — whether or not anyone was actually misled. Four new entries deal directly with environmental claims and labels.
• Stricter rules for future promises: under Section 5(3) No. 4 UWG, advertising future environmental performance requires a detailed, realistic implementation plan with measurable, time-bound targets, regularly reviewed by an independent external expert.

Note the distinction: this is about the ad’s content, not its disclosure — disclosure doesn’t cure a false claim, and a clean claim doesn’t replace disclosure.

These environmental claims are now banned

The four new entries in the annex to the UWG target wording that was routine in creator content:

• No. 2a – labels without certification: a sustainability label may only be used if it rests on a certification scheme with independent third-party verification or is set by public authorities. A brand’s homemade “Eco Choice” logo without external checks is out.
• No. 4a – generic environmental claims without proof: “eco-friendly”, “green”, “climate-friendly” or “ecological” without further detail are only allowed if the brand can prove recognized excellent environmental performance — e.g. via the EU Ecolabel or an officially recognized Type I ecolabel such as Germany’s Blue Angel. Alternatively, specify the claim clearly and prominently on the same medium — it is then no longer “generic”, but must still be true.
• No. 4b – false scope: a claim about the whole product or business that only concerns one part is banned. If only the packaging is recycled, the creator can’t talk about a “recycled product”.
• No. 4c – neutrality through offsetting: claims that a product has a neutral, reduced or positive environmental impact thanks to offset greenhouse gas emissions are banned. “Carbon neutral thanks to a climate project” is off-limits at product level, however transparently the offsetting is explained.

No. 10a is also new: requirements that apply by law to all products in a category may not be presented as a special feature of your offer.

The line was strict before: on 27 June 2024, Germany’s Federal Court of Justice (BGH, I ZR 98/23) ruled that an ambiguous term like “climate neutral” must be explained in the ad itself. For offset-based claims, the new law goes further: explaining no longer helps, the claim itself is prohibited. Brands may still support climate projects and say so — just not as proof of a “neutral” product.

Where the Green Claims Directive stands

Alongside EmpCo, the European Commission proposed a separate Green Claims Directive in 2023 to govern how explicit environmental claims are substantiated. Under the draft, companies would have had to get such claims verified and certified by independent bodies before publication.

On 20 June 2025, the Commission announced it intended to withdraw the proposal; the negotiating round between Parliament and Council planned for 23 June 2025 did not take place. Formally, however, it has not been withdrawn: according to law firm Linklaters’ analysis of the 2026 work programme, the Commission still lists it among pending files. There is no adopted text (as of October 2026).

In practice:

• No prior certification: you currently don’t need third-party verification of specific environmental claims before publication.
• Burden of proof all the same: anyone advertising with an environmental claim must be able to substantiate it in a dispute. Misleading claims were already prohibited under Section 5 UWG before 2026; the blacklist now comes on top.
• Don’t wait for Brussels: a revived directive would mainly formalize the burden of proof. Anyone already documenting every claim with evidence is prepared.

What this means for briefings and approvals

A creator can’t know which environmental performance your brand can prove. The briefing has to tell them — and the approval has to check it.

The briefing needs:

• An approved-claims list: which environmental claims are approved, in what exact wording, and what evidence backs them? Example: “The bottle is made from 100% recycled PET” — evidence: supplier certificate.
• A no-go list: “carbon neutral”, “CO₂ neutral”, “eco-friendly”, “sustainable”, “green”, “eco” — explicitly including hashtags, text overlays and subtitles.
• Rules for visuals: no homemade eco logos, no labels the product doesn’t carry, and caution with nature imagery that implies an environmental benefit.
• Guidance for spontaneous formats: livestreams, Story Q&As and podcasts produce statements without approval. Give the creator two or three prepared answers to “Is this sustainable?”.

In the approval, check the script or rough cut, caption, hashtags, text overlays and subtitles — not just the spoken word. For sensitive categories such as cosmetics, fashion, food or energy, bring the legal team in early, not the day before posting.

Check existing content against the new bans too: whitelisting ads still running with pre-September 2026 creator content, and older YouTube videos still found through search. Our influencer marketing page shows how we set up briefings and approvals.

Permitted or risky: how creators get the wording right

Sustainability remains a strong creator topic — only the language shifts: away from the label, towards the verifiable fact. Four rules help:

• Specific, not generic: not “eco-friendly sneakers” but “upper made from 60% recycled polyester” — provided the brand can prove exactly that. A specific, true and substantiated statement is the safest route.
• Part, not whole: say what the claim refers to — packaging, material, shipping, production site. The “sustainable brand” becomes “shipped in boxes without plastic filler”.
• Present, not promise: “Carbon neutral by 2030” is risky without a published, externally reviewed implementation plan. What’s already achieved and proven can be named specifically.
• Experience, not impact claims: a creator can share why repairability matters to them or that they use the refill pack. It gets tricky once they attribute an unsubstantiated environmental impact to the product itself.

By the wording of the law, the specification belongs on the same medium. When in doubt, put it in the video or image itself and in the caption — not just behind a product page link. Good creators solve this unobtrusively: a text overlay on the product shot, a spoken line naming the detail instead of repeating the label.

To word environmental claims robustly from the start, plan copy and evidence together — in creator collaborations just as in our content production.

Who is liable: brand, creator, agency

When a creator post contains an unlawful environmental claim, both sides are usually at risk.

• The brand: under Section 8(2) UWG, claims for injunction and removal also lie against the owner of the business if an employee or agent commits the infringement. A paid creator advertising on the brand’s behalf can be such an agent. “The creator wrote that” is no reliable defense.
• The creator: anyone paid for a collaboration acts commercially themselves and can also receive a cease-and-desist letter — even if they only repeated the briefing.
• Who can take action: under Section 8(3) UWG, entitled parties include competitors and qualified associations such as consumer organizations. The blacklist makes their job easier: an infringement no longer has to be argued as misleading in the individual case.

The contract should settle three things: the brand warrants that its approved claims are true and substantiated; the creator commits to using only approved environmental claims and having content signed off first; and it names who indemnifies whom, depending on whose mistake it was.

As an agency that manages creators and runs campaigns for brands, creatorhub knows both sides: we settle environmental claims in the briefing and check them again before publication, while the legal assessment of specific wording stays with the brand’s in-house or external lawyers. More on how we work on our for businesses page.

Risky and better wording

Even the better alternative is only permitted if it is true and the brand can prove it — put the evidence in the campaign file before posting.