Your “Eco-Friendly” Claim Is Now a Legal Risk

Since September 27, under the ECGT Directive (not the stalled Green Claims Directive), a green claim that sits on thousands of Czech and EU websites without a second thought is something a regulator can fine you for. Most businesses using it have not yet noticed the deadline has passed.

Since September 27, 2026, the EU’s Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive has applied across every member state, including the Czech Republic. Vague environmental language such as “eco-friendly,” “climate neutral,” or “sustainable,” used without proof to back it up, moves from a marketing habit into a legal exposure. Penalties in some countries reach up to €900,000 per violation or 10% of annual turnover. Claims already live on a website get no transition period. You can keep talking about sustainability. The job now is to say only what you can prove, and to phrase it so it reads as confident rather than defensive.

The date that has already passed, and why it is not the Green Claims Directive

Regulatory deadlines tend to reach marketing teams quietly, and this one did exactly that. The ECGT Directive was adopted back in March 2024, but it only became enforceable on September 27, 2026, through each member state’s consumer protection law. In the Netherlands, regulators can already impose fines up to €900,000 per violation or 10% of annual turnover. Ireland’s consumer protection authority can issue compliance notices and prohibition orders. Every EU country is expected to apply some version of the same pressure, and claims that were already circulating when the date arrived get no grace period. A phrase sitting in a website footer or a product description is still covered, even if it was written last year.

What actually changed on September 27, and how it differs from the green claims directive

The core shift is where the burden of proof sits. Until now, a business could generally call something “green” or “eco-friendly” unless a regulator proved otherwise. Since the deadline, that has reversed: the claim has to be substantiated before it is made, instead of being defended after someone complains. Explicit claims like “made from recycled materials” need verifiable backing. Implicit claims are covered too. That means green-coded imagery, leaf icons and earthy colour palettes that suggest sustainability without saying it outright. Eco badges designed in-house, however well-intentioned, will not satisfy the verification requirement on their own.

Why this matters even if you never mention “sustainability”

Two things make this bigger than it first looks. First, the rules apply to implicit claims as much as explicit ones. A business that never writes the word “sustainable” but leans on green visual cues to suggest it is still in scope. Second, this rarely arrives alone. Once a complaint or audit is triggered, consumer protection authorities tend to review a business’s full public messaging, beyond the specific line that prompted it. A vague claim sitting next to other loose language raises the odds that the whole page gets a second look.

The five-minute check worth running this week

Read through your website, packaging copy and social bios, and flag anything that claims an environmental benefit without a specific, checkable fact behind it. “Eco-friendly” with nothing underneath it is now a liability. “Packaging made from 30% recycled cardboard, verified by our supplier” is fine, because it is specific and provable. The test is simple. Could you produce the certificate, the supplier document or the data behind this sentence if someone asked tomorrow? If the honest answer is no, change the sentence now, before a complaint arrives.

The upside nobody mentions in compliance guidance

A business that can genuinely back up its claims now has a real advantage over competitors who cannot. Vague, unverifiable green language has flooded marketing for years, and consumers have grown sharper at spotting it. As the weaker claims disappear from the market under regulatory pressure, the businesses left with specific, provable statements will look more credible by comparison. In this case, doing the right thing and doing the strategically smart thing point in the same direction.

Where green claims become a brand voice problem

Rewriting green claims to be specific and provable changes more than the legal risk. It changes the tone of the sentence. “Sustainable” is a mood word: soft and vague, easy to write and just as easy to challenge. “Verified by FSC chain-of-custody certification” is a fact. It is harder to write well and much harder to challenge, and it reads as more confident because it commits to something specific. Getting that tone right across a website, packaging and social copy is brand voice work as much as legal housekeeping. We recommend doing both together, so you do not end up with two separate projects that quietly contradict each other.

If you have not reviewed your messaging since September 27, a brand voice audit can flag risky language and rewrite it to sound more confident, not less. Or start with a free 5-point check on your current site copy.

Sources

• MyGreenLab / Eversheds Sutherland, EU Green Transition Directive: https://mygreenlab.org/resources/eu-green-transition-directive/
• A&O Shearman, Greenwashing Risks Under New EU Green Claims Rules: https://www.aoshearman.com/en/insights/green-claims-under-the-microscope-new-rules-for-eu-and-noneu-businesses
• ClimatePartner, EU Green Claims Directive: https://www.climatepartner.com/en/knowledge/glossary/green-claims-directive
• Tocco.Earth, EU Green Claims Directive, Explained: https://tocco.earth/article/eu-green-claims-directive-gcd
• Senken, Green Claims Directive: Current Status: https://www.senken.io/academy/green-claims-directive-eu