The Eu's Green Claims Blacklist: What Changes for Brands on 27 September 2026

The EU’s green claims blacklist changes brands will confront across every product label, website and advertising campaign the moment the new rules under Directive (EU) 2024/825 become applicable on 27 September 2026. Known formally as the “Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition” Directive, this measure amends the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and the Consumer Rights Directive to prohibit a defined list of environmental marketing statements outright, tighten substantiation standards, and expose non-compliant companies to penalties under national law. The Directive itself does not provide a general transition period for products already on the market, so the audit work should be finished before, not after, the deadline.

For businesses in the Czech Republic and any company selling into the EU, this guide sets out what is banned, what remains permissible, how to build a defensible evidence file, and how enforcement is likely to play out in practice.

Intro: Why 27 September 2026 matters for brands

The reason the EU’s green claims blacklist changes brands so fundamentally is that it converts vague, unverifiable environmental marketing from a reputational grey area into a hard legal prohibition. Directive (EU) 2024/825 inserts a set of banned commercial practices directly into the Unfair Commercial Practices framework, meaning that certain green claims are treated as unfair in all circumstances, no case-by-case assessment, no defence based on good intentions. Companies that continue to run non-compliant packaging, shipping claims or advertising after the deadline may face administrative action, corrective measures and fines under the transposing national law.

TL;DR, five things to do now:

• Map every green claim across packaging, websites, paid ads, social posts and influencer content.
• Delete or rework blacklisted formulations such as “climate neutral”, “carbon neutral” and generic “eco-friendly”.
• Build an evidence file for any remaining claim, third-party verification, lifecycle data and clear scope.
• Decide what to do with printed stock and long-running campaigns before the deadline, using a risk-based approach.
• Assign governance, legal, marketing, product and supply chain each need a defined role and sign-off authority.

What Directive (EU) 2024/825 does, legal mechanics and scope

Directive (EU) 2024/825 does not create a standalone code. Instead, it amends two existing pillars of EU consumer law: Directive 2005/29/EC on Unfair Commercial Practices (the UCPD) and Directive 2011/83/EU on Consumer Rights. By working through these instruments, the Directive plugs its new prohibitions into an enforcement architecture that already exists in every Member State, including the Czech Republic.

The two most important structural changes are these. First, the Directive expands the UCPD’s list of commercial practices considered unfair in all circumstances, the so-called “blacklist” in Annex I. Practices added to this list require no proof that the average consumer was actually misled; they are prohibited per se. Second, it strengthens pre-contractual and labelling information obligations under the Consumer Rights Directive, which matters particularly for distance selling and online claims.

As a directive, the measure takes effect through national transposition rather than direct application. Member States were required to adopt and publish the transposing measures by 27 March 2026, and to apply those measures from 27 September 2026. That sequencing is why the September date is the operative compliance moment for brands: from that day, the transposed prohibitions apply.

Scope, products, services, distance selling and territorial reach

The prohibitions apply to business-to-consumer commercial practices generally, they are not confined to physical product packaging. Environmental claims made on websites, in online marketplaces, in paid search and display advertising, in social media, and by influencers acting on a brand’s behalf all fall within scope. Because the UCPD applies to traders directing commercial practices at EU consumers, the territorial reach can extend to non-EU companies marketing into the single market. A Czech distributor importing goods from outside the EU, or a foreign brand marketing directly to Czech consumers, should therefore treat the rules as relevant to their communications regardless of where the company is headquartered.

Blacklisted claims, concrete examples and prohibited formulations

The heart of the reform is the expanded blacklist. The following table illustrates how the EU’s green claims blacklist changes brands’ everyday marketing language, pairing common banned formulations with the reason they fail and a compliant alternative. These are illustrative examples grounded in the Directive’s prohibited categories, not an exhaustive list.

The recurring theme is that unverifiable, generic or offset-dependent positive statements about environmental performance are the primary target. Where a brand cannot point to demonstrated, specific and evidenced performance, the claim should be removed rather than softened.

What claims remain permissible, narrow safe harbours

The Directive does not prohibit environmental marketing altogether; it channels it into narrower, evidence-backed forms. Generic environmental claims are only acceptable where excellent environmental performance can be demonstrated, for example, where it corresponds to a relevant recognised scheme or an established high standard for the product category. This is a demanding threshold, not a marketing convenience.

Beyond that, claims that are precise, qualified and limited to the specific aspect they actually concern remain available. If a genuine environmental benefit relates to one component, one stage of production or one attribute, the claim should be scoped to that element and not generalised to the whole product. Comparative environmental claims are permissible only where they rest on verifiable, equivalent data and a transparent comparison methodology.

Use of recognised labels and certification schemes

Certification-based labels remain one of the safer routes for brands, provided the label is based on a genuine third-party certification scheme or is established by public authorities. Self-invented badges, unverified in-house “sustainability” seals and privately controlled labels without independent oversight fall on the wrong side of the line. Before displaying any label, marketing teams should confirm the scheme’s independence, the criteria behind it, and that the specific product actually meets those criteria.

Substantiation: what evidence do companies now need?

Understanding how the EU’s green claims blacklist changes brands’ evidence obligations is as important as knowing which words are banned. A permitted claim is only defensible if the underlying substantiation would withstand scrutiny from a regulator or a competitor. The underlying logic of EU consumer law is that the trader making the claim should be able to substantiate its accuracy.

For any environmental performance claim that survives the blacklist filter, the following evidence categories should be assembled and retained:

• Lifecycle assessment (LCA) with a defined scope. Where a claim rests on overall environmental performance, an LCA aligned with recognised methodology, such as the approaches promoted through the European Commission and its Joint Research Centre, helps establish credibility. The scope, system boundaries and functional unit must be documented.
• Third-party verification. Independent verification of the data and methodology carries far more weight than internal assertions. Retain the verifier’s report and credentials.
• Certification scheme details. For any label used, keep the scheme rules, the certificate, its validity period and evidence that the specific product is covered.
• Quantitative, verifiable data. Percentages, reduction figures and comparisons must be traceable to source data, with the baseline and measurement period stated.
• Traceability on offsetting. If any offsetting is referenced at all, its role must be clearly limited, it cannot be used to support a general neutrality claim built on offsetting rather than the product’s actual performance.

Quick evidentiary checklist for marketing teams

Before a claim is published, the responsible team should be able to produce, on request: the source data behind every number; the methodology or standard applied; any third-party verification report; the certification documents for any label used; the defined scope and time period of the claim; and a dated record of who approved it. Documentation should be retained for the life of the claim and for a reasonable period afterwards to answer any subsequent challenge. If any of these documents is missing, the claim is not yet ready to run.

Pre-deadline audit: a step-by-step checklist for how the green claims blacklist changes brands

A structured audit is the single most effective way to manage exposure before 27 September 2026. The workflow below assigns responsibility, prioritises the highest-risk assets, and ends in a clear decision for each claim: keep, rework or retract.

1. Inventory every claim. Build a central register capturing each environmental claim, where it appears, the responsible owner and the supporting evidence (if any). Suggested spreadsheet fields: asset type, market, exact wording, claim category, evidence held, verification status, risk rating, action and deadline.
2. Assign cross-functional ownership. Legal interprets the prohibitions and signs off; marketing and communications identify where claims appear; product and R&D supply the underlying data; supply chain confirms certification and sourcing facts.
3. Prioritise by risk and reach. Triage in this order: high-volume product labels and packaging; shipping and delivery claims; homepage and product-page website copy; paid search and display ads; organic social posts; and influencer content, which requires briefing partners to update or remove non-compliant statements.
4. Apply the blacklist filter. For each claim, ask whether it is a banned formulation. If yes, remove it. If no, move it to the substantiation stage.
5. Test substantiation. For surviving claims, confirm the evidence file is complete. Where it is not, either commission the evidence or withdraw the claim.
6. Redraft with compliant wording. Replace vague statements with specific, scoped, evidenced alternatives, for example, swap “eco-friendly packaging” for “packaging made from 80% recycled material, certified by [named scheme]”.
7. Govern the outcome. Decide stop-sale, rework or retract for each asset, log the decision and its rationale, and set implementation dates ahead of the deadline.

Timing and resourcing, a triage approach for large portfolios

Large portfolios cannot audit everything at once. A pragmatic approach concentrates early effort on the assets that combine the highest legal risk with the widest consumer reach, typically flagship product packaging and prominent shipping or “neutrality” claims. Lower-risk, low-visibility assets can follow. Building the register early also allows legal to spot patterns, a single banned phrase repeated across dozens of SKUs can often be fixed once at the template level, saving significant time.

Treatment of stock already printed and long-running campaigns

Because the Directive does not provide a general transition period for products already on the market, pre-printed stock and long-running campaigns are among the most difficult practical problems. Brands generally choose between several options, each carrying different cost and risk:

• Rework or over-label. Applying corrective stickers or cover labels to existing packaging can neutralise a non-compliant claim without a full recall, where operationally feasible.
• Withhold or delay sale. Holding non-compliant stock back from the EU market until it can be corrected avoids exposure but ties up inventory value.
• Recall. The most costly option, generally reserved for high-visibility, high-risk claims where corrective labelling is impractical.

A risk-based decision tree, weighing the volume and value of the stock against the seriousness of the claim and the likelihood of enforcement in each market, helps allocate effort proportionately. For distributors, issuing clear written notices instructing that non-compliant items be corrected or withheld protects the brand and creates an audit trail of good-faith compliance. Where any doubt exists about the transitional treatment of specific stock, seek local legal advice on the transposing Czech legislation.

Relationship with the proposed Green Claims Directive and broader EU policy

Directive (EU) 2024/825 should not be confused with the separate, proposed Green Claims Directive, which remains under negotiation at EU level and whose final form and timing are not settled. The two are intended to be complementary rather than duplicative. Directive (EU) 2024/825 works through consumer protection law: it establishes the blacklist and general prohibitions on misleading environmental practices. The proposed Green Claims Directive would address a different layer, standardising the methodology for substantiating and communicating explicit environmental claims, including verification procedures. In short, one sets the bright-line prohibitions consumers can rely on once transposed, while the other aims to harmonise how permitted claims must be proven and presented.

Brands should design their compliance programmes around Directive (EU) 2024/825 first while monitoring the proposal’s progress, since it may add further methodological obligations in future if adopted.

Enforcement and remedies, who enforces, penalties and procedures

Enforcement in the Czech Republic runs through the national machinery that polices unfair commercial practices. The Czech Trade Inspection Authority (Česká obchodní inspekce) is a principal consumer-protection enforcer for product and marketing claims, handling complaints and exercising powers over misleading commercial practices. Alongside public enforcement, competitors and consumer associations can pursue action through national unfair-competition and consumer-law routes, including under the unfair-competition provisions of the Czech Civil Code.

The Office for the Protection of Competition (Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže, ÚOHS) is the Czech national competition authority; its core remit is antitrust, merger control, public procurement and State aid rather than consumer green-claims enforcement, which primarily sits with consumer-protection authorities. Green-claims matters may nonetheless intersect with unfair-competition considerations pursued between traders.

The remedies available reflect the seriousness of the reform. Authorities can require corrective measures, order the cessation of infringing practices, impose interim measures and injunctions, and levy administrative fines. Under the UCPD as amended, Member States must provide for effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties, and for certain widespread cross-border infringements the framework requires that fines can reach at least 4% of the trader’s annual turnover in the Member State(s) concerned (or a fixed alternative amount where turnover information is unavailable). The exact fine levels applicable in the Czech Republic depend on the transposing national legislation.

Typical timelines and evidence requests

An administrative investigation typically begins with a complaint or the authority’s own monitoring, followed by a formal request for information. At that point the trader is expected to produce the substantiation file discussed above. The speed and outcome of a matter often turn on whether that evidence exists and is well organised. Companies that can respond promptly with verified data and certification documents are far better placed than those scrambling to reconstruct a claim’s basis after the fact.

Competitor action vs regulatory investigation, a direct comparison

Brands face risk from two distinct directions, and the practical differences matter when deciding how to prioritise compliance and prepare a defence.

The common denominator is substantiation. Whether the challenge comes from a competitor’s lawyers or a regulator’s information request, the decisive question is whether the brand can prove the claim. A robust evidence file is the best insurance against both.

Practical next steps for Czech-based and foreign brands selling into the EU

The window to act is closing, so sequence the work by urgency:

• 0–14 days: Appoint an audit owner, assemble the cross-functional team, and begin the central claims register. Immediately flag and remove obvious blacklisted phrases such as “carbon neutral” and generic “eco-friendly”.
• 15–60 days: Complete the full inventory, apply the blacklist filter across all markets, test substantiation for surviving claims, and commission any missing evidence or verification. Brief distributors and influencer partners on required changes.
• 60–90 days before 27 September 2026: Implement redrafted wording, execute stock and campaign decisions, finalise the evidence archive, and put governance and sign-off controls in place so no non-compliant claim can be published going forward.

Companies with large portfolios, complex supply chains or offset-based claims should engage external counsel early. Specialist competition and consumer-law practitioners in the Czech Republic can support portfolio audits, evidence review and enforcement defence.

Conclusion

The EU’s green claims blacklist changes brands’ environmental marketing from a matter of tone to a matter of law. From 27 September 2026, unverifiable neutrality claims, generic “eco” language, self-invented labels and misleading whole-product statements are prohibited outright, and the practical burden of proving every surviving claim falls squarely on the trader. With penalties set under national transposing law and no general transition for stock already on the market, the practical priority is a disciplined pre-deadline audit backed by a defensible evidence file. Brands that treat this as a governance exercise, mapping claims, filtering out the banned, substantiating the rest and controlling future sign-off, will be far better placed than those that wait for a complaint.

For a bespoke compliance audit or enforcement defence in the Czech Republic, the Global Law Experts competition network can help. For related reading, see Czech competition law reform 2026 and the Competition practice area, Czech Republic hub, and connect with a specialist through the Czech Republic lawyer directory, Competition.

Sources

1. Directive (EU) 2024/825 (Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition), EUR-Lex
2. Directive 2005/29/EC on Unfair Commercial Practices (UCPD), EUR-Lex
3. Directive 2011/83/EU on Consumer Rights, EUR-Lex
4. Office for the Protection of Competition (Czech Republic), ÚOHS
5. Czech Trade Inspection Authority (Česká obchodní inspekce)
6. Czech Bar Association (Česká advokátní komora)
7. European Commission, Consumer rights and protection
8. European Commission, Joint Research Centre (LCA methodology guidance)