Climate Change Litigation – Competition Law as a Lever to Increase Momentum in Climate Protection?

published on 24 July 2025 | reading time approx. 4 minutes

Climate lawsuits are increasing worldwide. Lawsuits filed especially by NGOs and consumer protection organizations are intended to force states or companies to make greater efforts to protect the environment from climate change or to compensate for damages caused by climate change. Apart from legal success, the plaintiffs are primarily concerned with media attention, raising public awareness, and advancing the political discourse.

Through the expansion to additional jurisdictions and industry sectors, the introduction of new types of lawsuits and litigation strategies, as well as the use of creative forms of litigation financing, the topic of Climate Change Litigation is gaining rapid momentum.

Climate lawsuits are no longer only directed at state actors based on public or international law provisions. Increasingly, companies are becoming a “means to an end” to broaden the discussion about climate change and thus accelerate the fight against climate change.

Types of Climate Lawsuits

In the recent past, the first corporate law lawsuits for breaches of directors' duties (allegation: “mismanaging climate risks”) have been brought in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, among other places. In addition, numerous compensatory lawsuits are pending in Germany and the EU, seeking damages for climate-related harm on the basis of tort law. Finally, CO2 reduction lawsuits brought by Deutsche Umwelthilfe against prominent opponents such as BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Wintershall, or by Greenpeace Germany against Volkswagen—demanding an early end to the sale of vehicles with diesel and petrol combustion engines (from 2030)—made headlines.

Gateway via Competition Law: Greenwashing Litigation

From a legal perspective, enforcing such corporate and tort law claims—at least in Germany—is currently anything but straightforward. As a result, marketing activities are increasingly being used as a springboard for climate lawsuits. The Act Against Unfair Competition (UWG) thus appears to be a "promising lever" to demand climate protection through civil law channels against private-sector companies and thereby increase momentum in the fight against climate change. The allegation of so-called greenwashing has therefore led to the emergence of a new category of climate lawsuits: Greenwashing Litigation.

The observable trend among lower courts to scrutinize every form of sustainability communication with the utmost precision for its truthfulness and verifiability is causing growing frustration among companies and their legal advisors. The specific requirements for legally sound communication are often difficult to determine in advance. Those unwilling to take risks reduce their environmental efforts or at least their communication about them which, in terms of effective climate protection, is certainly not a viable solution.

Advertising Claims of “Climate Neutrality” in the Spotlight

Currently, advertising claims regarding alleged climate neutrality are particularly in the focus of environmental and consumer protection groups.

Such statements often refer only to individual areas of a company's operations—such as shipping or administration—but not to the procurement and transport of raw materials or the product usage phase, which typically account for the vast majority of emissions. Moreover, few companies explain how this climate neutrality is achieved—whether through the primarily required reduction or through compensation. Yet the suitability of compensation projects is one of the most hotly debated issues. In particular, reforestation and forest protection projects often fail to deliver on their promises. In many cases, it cannot be guaranteed whether the emissions generated are actually fully offset—and especially when this will occur. Unlike government-issued organic or eco-labels, there is (as yet) no legally defined minimum standard for CO₂ labels. Labels issued by private-sector entities therefore often appear unreliable. The methodologies used to calculate emissions are also not standardized.

The German Environmental Aid (Deutsche Umwelthilfe) also takes a critical view of claims in which companies state their intention to achieve net-zero emissions in the future—for example, by 2050. Such claims are seen as a way for companies to create a green image today, even though these promises are often not substantiated or not substantiated sufficiently by concrete measures. In particular, it is not sufficient to refer solely to the company's own sustainability report for clarification, as the company Adidas recently had to learn the hard way (Regional Court Nuremberg-Fürth [3rd Chamber for Commercial Matters], final judgment of 25.03.2025 – 3 HK O 6524/24).

Strict Requirements for Disclosure

According to the case law of the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH), strict requirements apply to the accuracy, clarity, and unambiguity of advertising claims using environmental protection terms and labels. In particular, due to the significant influence of environmental friendliness on consumer decision-making and the interpretative nature of many advertising messages, there is an increased risk of misleading the public and a heightened need for clarification. If the explanatory information required under these standards is missing from the advertisement or is not prominently displayed, there is a particularly high risk that the targeted consumer groups will form incorrect assumptions about the nature of the advertised product and that their purchasing decision will be influenced as a result (BGH GRUR 2024, 1122 para. 24 et seq. – klimaneutral with further references).

Due to the aforementioned strict requirements for accuracy, clarity, and unambiguity, the BGH takes the view that—so as to avoid misleading advertising—it is generally necessary for the specific meaning behind an environmental claim to be clearly and unambiguously explained directly within the advertisement itself. Clarifying information provided outside the advertisement, which the consumer would have to actively seek out, is not sufficient according to the BGH (BGH GRUR 2024, 1122 paras. 29, 36 – klimaneutral).

Conclusion

First and foremost, Deutsche Umwelthilfe is currently pursuing around 100 proceedings against companies of various sizes and industries, according to the list of cases available on its website.

Companies should therefore subject their sustainability communication to a thorough review for accuracy and completeness. Particular caution is advised when excerpts from the legally required sustainability reporting are directly incorporated into marketing activities.

In light of the upcoming regulation through the EmpCO Directive and the planned Green Claims Directive, it can also be expected that the requirements for corporate sustainability communication will become even stricter.

Feel free to contact us if you have any questions about legally compliant sustainability communication.