How high can an ACM fine go?

For unfair commercial practices, the ACM can impose a fine of up to 900,000 euros per breach or, if that is higher, a percentage of annual turnover. A misleading environmental claim falls under those rules. How the ACM will enforce the new bans in the first months had not been shown in any fining decision as of 28 September 2026; it calls on companies to review their claims critically and is working with other European regulators on an updated guideline.

Has the Green Claims Directive been withdrawn?

Announced, not completed. On 20 June 2025 the European Commission said it intended to withdraw the proposal, and the final negotiations were called off. In the European Parliament's Legislative Observatory the file (2023/0085(COD)) still shows, on 28 September 2026, the status of awaiting the Council's first-reading position. So it is not law and it has not been formally withdrawn either. For your webshop it changes nothing: the rules that apply now come from the ECGT Directive, which has been adopted, transposed and is in application.

What if I still have packaging with old claims in stock?

There is no formal transition period. The European consumer authorities (the CPC network) did agree, on the ACM's initiative, that regulators can take transitional situations into account in specific cases, for example with demonstrably old stock and when a company demonstrably worked, before the new rules, to comply as quickly as possible. So record what you did and when: purchase dates of the old batch, the date of your new print proof, the adjusted product copy. Without that file you have nothing to point to.

Can I substantiate a claim through a QR code on the packaging?

That is not certain. The law calls an environmental claim generic when its specification is not provided in clear and prominent terms on the same medium. Whether a QR code to a web page counts as the same medium had not been interpreted by the ACM or a court as of 28 September 2026; the ACM is working on further guidance. The safe route is the specification in words directly next to the claim on the packaging itself, with the QR code only for the fuller substantiation behind it.

Who enforces the rules for green claims in the Netherlands?

The Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM). The ACM has its own guideline for sustainability claims and has actively investigated greenwashing before. With H&M and Decathlon (2022), that led to commitments to adjust vague claims plus voluntary donations, not to fines. The well-known KLM greenwashing case ran through the courts (brought by Stichting Fossielvrij), not via the ACM. Because the new bans are in the Civil Code, competitors, consumers and foundations can also invoke them in court.

Knowledge Base

Green Claims Directive 2026: 6 claims no longer allowed

Q: Since when do the stricter rules for green claims apply in the Netherlands?

Since 27 September 2026. That is the date of application in Directive (EU) 2024/825, the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive (ECGT or EmpCo), and the date the ACM and the Dutch government communicate. The Dutch transposition is the Implementation Act for the directive on better sustainability information for consumers (Stb. 2026, 152). Formally, the commencement decree (Stb. 2026, 204) already brought that act into force on 16 July 2026. In practice it no longer matters: since 27 September the new bans are in Book 6 of the Dutch Civil Code beyond any doubt, and the ACM is the regulator.

Louie Valkhof25 mei 202612 min read

Design · Packaging Green-Claims Sustainability-Claims Brand-Identity E-Commerce-Branding EmpCo ACM

Since 27 September 2026: what now applies to green claims

Since 27 September 2026, stricter rules apply to green claims. That covers your webshop, your packaging and your ads. The rules come from the European Directive (EU) 2024/825, the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive (ECGT, also called EmpCo), and are in Book 6 of the Dutch Civil Code through the Implementation Act for the directive on better sustainability information for consumers. The ACM is the regulator and can fine up to €900,000 per breach, or a percentage of annual turnover if that is higher.

When this blog appeared in May, it counted down to that date. That date has passed. This version describes what is now in the law, with the article numbers included, so you can test every claim yourself.

One nuance about the date. The ACM and the Dutch government communicate 27 September 2026, the date of application in the directive. The Dutch commencement decree formally brought the act into force on 16 July 2026 already. How those two dates relate, we worked out in the guarantee notice and checkout: the rules already apply. For green claims the conclusion is simple: since 27 September there is no reading left in which the bans do not yet apply.

This year's brand history shows why this is more than compliance. In May 2026 it became public that Shein is taking over Everlane, the brand that for years positioned itself as the ethical and transparent alternative. A brand that rests its identity on a single promise has no backup when that promise comes under pressure. Not in the market, not with a regulator.

What is settled and what is not

It is settled that the ECGT Directive applies and that the Dutch transposition is in the Staatsblad. It is not settled how the ACM will enforce the new bans in the first months, or how a few open concepts will be interpreted. The table separates the two.

Topic	Status on 28 September 2026	Certainty
ECGT Directive (EU) 2024/825	In application since 27 September 2026	Settled
Dutch transposition	Stb. 2026, 152; in force via Stb. 2026, 204	Settled
Blacklist of green claims	Added to article 6:193g of the Dutch Civil Code (items ab to af)	Settled
Regulator	ACM	Settled
Transition period for old stock	None formally; room for case-by-case leniency with demonstrable effort	Settled, applied case by case
ACM sustainability claims guideline	Being revised; new version not yet published	Open
Does a QR code count as "the same medium"?	Not interpreted by the ACM or a court	Open
Green Claims Directive (proposal 2023/0085)	Withdrawal announced June 2025; formally still pending	Open, with no effect on the current rules

The last row explains the confusion around this piece's title. Green Claims Directive is the name of a separate proposal that would have required companies to have claims verified up front. In June 2025 the Commission announced it intended to withdraw it. In the European Parliament's Legislative Observatory the file still has the status "Awaiting Council's 1st reading position": not adopted, not formally withdrawn. "Green Claims" mainly lives on as a popular name for the fight against greenwashing. The rules in this blog come from the ECGT Directive.

1. "Climate neutral" based on offsetting

A claim that a product is climate neutral, CO₂ neutral or climate positive thanks to offsetting emissions has been misleading in all cases since 27 September. It is on the blacklist word for word. Article 6:193g under ae of the Dutch Civil Code transposes the directive, which in its English wording bans "claiming, based on the offsetting of greenhouse gas emissions, that a product has a neutral, reduced or positive impact on the environment in terms of greenhouse gas emissions".

Why this is so strict: a blacklisted practice is always unfair. The ACM does not have to show that a consumer bought differently because of it. Nor does it matter how good the offsetting project is. Planting trees, clean water, reforestation: if the neutrality claim rests on offsetting, it falls.

What is still allowed: claims about actual reductions in your own value chain, as long as they are specific and substantiated, because those fall under the ordinary test for misleading practices (article 6:193c of the Dutch Civil Code). And investing in offsetting remains legal. You can talk about it, just not as the basis for a neutrality claim.

Concrete alternative on your product page: replace "climate neutral product" with "CO₂ emissions per unit reduced since [year], calculated using [method], report at /sustainability". Tell your offsetting story separately, in its own paragraph, without the word neutral.

2. "Eco", "sustainable", "green" without specification

A generic environmental claim has been banned since 27 September, unless you can demonstrate recognised excellent environmental performance (blacklist, article 6:193g of the Dutch Civil Code). Generic, in the directive's English wording, means a claim where "the specification of the claim is not provided in clear and prominent terms on the same medium". "Sustainable" on its own on a pack is generic. "Sustainable: box made of FSC-certified cardboard" on that same pack is not.

Recognised excellent environmental performance is a narrow exception. The law ties it to the EU Ecolabel, officially recognised ISO 14024 ecolabelling schemes or the highest performance under other EU law. Your own sustainability report does not qualify.

Also watch item ad: a claim about the whole product when it only concerns one aspect is banned as well. "Sustainable bottle" when only the label is made of recycled paper hits that point. For why this directly affects your brand identity, see e-commerce brand identity: why you are missing revenue.

Concrete alternative: replace "produced entirely green" with "produced in a solar-powered factory since [year]". Specific, verifiable and on the same medium.

3. Future promises without an implementation plan

"CO₂ neutral by 2030" has been allowed since 27 September only if a concrete, public and externally verified plan sits beneath it. Article 6:193c(2)(d) of the Dutch Civil Code transposes the directive provision that, in its English wording, calls such a claim misleading without "clear, objective, publicly available and verifiable commitments set out in a detailed and realistic implementation plan that includes measurable, time-bound targets and other relevant elements necessary to support its implementation, such as allocation of resources", that is "regularly verified by an independent third-party expert, whose findings are made available to consumers".

In practice those are four requirements. A plan with interim targets and years. Resources allocated to that plan. An independent external expert who checks it regularly. And that expert's findings made public for your customers.

Note the combination with point 1: a future neutrality claim that leans on offsetting falls under the blacklist even with a perfect plan.

Concrete alternative: replace "CO₂ neutral by 2030" with "Target: halving emissions per product by 2030 compared with 2022. Plan, interim targets and annual review by [independent party] at /sustainability". Longer, that's true. But defensible.

4. Self-made sustainability labels

A sustainability label that is not based on a certification scheme and not established by a public authority has been banned since 27 September (article 6:193g under ab of the Dutch Civil Code). This is the point the ACM itself puts most sharply: according to the regulator, there is now "a definitive end to the use of company labels that are not independent".

For brands this is often the most painful one. Many webshops designed their own icon, a leaf with "Green Choice" or "Eco Line", that sits on every product photo and pack. Under the new rules such a mark is a sustainability label. Without a certification scheme run by an independent third party, it has to go.

What is still allowed: a recognised label from an independent party (EU Ecolabel, FSC, and comparable schemes with independent checks), or turning your own icon into a neutral design element with no sustainability meaning. The icon can stay if it no longer claims anything.

In practice: list every mark on your packaging and in your product images. If there is a leaf, globe or tick with a sustainability word next to it, it is a label in the legal sense.

5. Brand names with a green promise

A brand name, company name or product name can itself be an environmental claim. The law says so explicitly: the definition of environmental claim, transposed in article 6:193a of the Dutch Civil Code, covers representations "such as labels, brand names, company names or product names". A product line called "EcoLine" or a box called "GreenBox" says something about the environment.

Why this gets strict: a name that specifies nothing is a generic environmental claim (see point 2). It is only allowed with recognised excellent environmental performance or when the specification is stated in clear words on the same medium.

Two options for "EcoBox 50". Option one: choose a neutral name such as "Box 50". Option two: keep the name and put the specification in words right next to the name on the pack, for example "EcoBox 50: box made of recycled cardboard, no plastic window". A QR code on its own is a risk: whether it counts as the same medium has not been interpreted by anyone yet. Choosing a new name often runs alongside a broader branding project, because the positioning around the name has to move with it.

6. "Fully recyclable" without explaining the whole

"Fully recyclable" or "100 percent recyclable" is not literally on the blacklist, but since 27 September it is vulnerable in two ways. If the claim only covers part of the packaging, for example the bottle but not the cap or the sleeve label, it hits item ad: a claim about the whole that only concerns one aspect. And if it holds in theory but not in practice, it falls under the ordinary test for misleading practices.

There is one more trap in the same corner. Item af bans presenting legal requirements that apply to all products in your category as something distinctive about you. A property every competitor must also meet is not a selling point.

What is still allowed: claims that state which part, through which route and under which condition. "Bottle and cap recyclable through the PMD stream; remove the label first" is concrete. For the design side of recyclability, and the measurable requirements added from 2030, see designing recyclable packaging: the 2030 rules.

Concrete alternative: replace "fully recyclable" with "Recyclable through PMD; check your municipality's rules". Honest, specific and without a shadow.

Not through your claims yet? How to tackle it now

Anyone who has not reviewed their claims yet has been at risk since 27 September, but can still resolve it in an orderly way. An audit does four things, in this order:

List every claim: hero copy, product pages, marketplace listings, ads, packaging, email templates, social bios, marks and product names
Categorise each claim: blacklist (remove), generic (specify or remove), substantiated (keep, archive the evidence)
Write a specific, verifiable replacement for every claim that has to go
Document your approach for stock with old claims: what, how much, since when, and when the new version went into production

That last step is not paperwork for show. There is no formal transition period, but according to the joint position of the European consumer authorities, regulators can take demonstrably old stock into account if you demonstrably work to comply with the new rules as quickly as possible. That file is your only argument.

The order of execution is now the reverse of what we advised in May. Back then packaging came first, because a print run has lead time. Now the webshop, marketplace listings and ads go first, because you can change those within days and they are what a regulator sees first. Then comes the packaging, with a dated plan for the next print run. For the packaging side of that same legislative stack, see also the PPWR checklist, the PPWR breakdown per packaging type and why marketplaces do not enforce the PPWR for you.

Brand identity is broader than the claim alone

An audit of your claims without a broader brand picture treats symptoms. A brand that gets its claims legally clean but then has no sharp positioning falls back on generic marketing. Six years of brand work at Oase Creative show that brands revising their claims usually need to sharpen their positioning again too; the two exercises overlap.

That applies especially to brands whose name, mark or pack colour carried the sustainability promise itself. There it is not a copy fix but a brand question: what is left once the claim is gone, and is that enough to be chosen? If you want to work through that together, with an inventory of your claims, rewordings and an action list your printer can execute: via contact.

What the ECGT Directive teaches the market is this. Brands that leaned on a single unproven claim have no backup when that claim falls. The law forces the market back toward substantiation. For brands that were already doing it right, that's no problem. For the rest, since 27 September it is no longer a reminder, but the norm.