Whilst historically, climate-related litigation has been focused on governments, a report published last year by the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment highlighted how, in recent years, climate litigation has increasingly been initiated against corporations for alleged environmental, social and governance (ESG) failings.
One company that found itself under fire for alleged ‘greenwashing’ was Coca-Cola.
The Coca-Cola claims
In October 2024, LA County in the United States brought proceedings against The Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo, alleging that both companies had misrepresented the potential health and environmental harms associated with their plastic bottles. The claim alleged that the companies had “engaged in a disinformation campaign” which led consumers to believe that their plastic bottles could be recycled indefinitely, thereby offsetting their environmental impact, when in reality they could only be recycled once. LA County argued that this amounted to a misleading and unfair business practice.
Following this, in November 2024, the French environmental group France Nature Environnement (FNE) filed a complaint against Coca-Cola Europacific Partners France for alleged greenwashing during the Paris 2024 Olympic Games. Coca-Cola was a key sponsor of the Games and responsible for supplying drinks throughout the event. The company had publicly supported the Games’ ambition to reduce single-use plastic and pledged to serve more than half of its drinks in reusable plastic cups through the installation of more than 700 soda fountains and the sale of drinks in glass bottles.
FNE alleged that more than six million drinks were instead served by pouring them from plastic bottles into reusable cups. According to FNE, this “well-rehearsed choreography” meant consumers believed they were receiving drinks from an environmentally friendly container, while the plastic bottles were discarded out of sight. FNE argued that these practices amounted to misleading commercial practices, contrary to the French Consumer Code.
ESG scrutiny across Europe and the USA
Coca-Cola was not the only major corporation scrutinised last year for potentially misleading environmental marketing. It is clear that public interest groups are increasingly seeking to hold corporations to account for their ESG credentials.
For example, in April 2024, the German environmental and consumer protection association Deutsche Umwelthilfe brought proceedings in Frankfurt against Apple Distribution International Ltd, alleging that Apple had misleadingly promoted three Apple Watch models as “CO2-neutral”. Deutsche Umwelthilfe argued that Apple’s carbon-neutral claims relied upon carbon offset projects about which there was insufficient transparency. Whilst this case focuses on the marketing of the watches themselves, Deutsche Umwelthilfe has also criticised Apple’s wider environmental marketing practices.
In February 2025, a similar claim was brought in California by individuals alleging that Apple’s marketing of the Series 9, SE and Ultra 2 Apple Watches as “carbon neutral” and “environmentally friendly” amounted to false advertising. The claim challenges the effectiveness of projects in Kenya and China relied upon by Apple and alleges that consumers would not have purchased the watches had they known the true position.
The focus on airlines and allegations of greenwashing also continued throughout 2024. In March, a court in Amsterdam upheld a successful claim brought by Dutch NGO Fossielvrij NL against KLM for misleading customers through vague environmental claims. Later, in October 2024, the Australian environmental litigation NGO Environmental Defenders Office lodged a complaint with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) against Qantas Airways Ltd, asking the regulator to investigate whether statements about the airline’s sustainability strategy and commitment to achieving net zero emissions by 2050 breached Australian consumer law.
Last year also saw increased scrutiny of businesses operating in the financial sector:
- ClientEarth submitted a complaint to the French financial regulator (Autorité des marchés financiers) alleging that BlackRock had engaged in misleading marketing by promoting investment funds as sustainable whilst maintaining significant investments in fossil fuel companies.
- In December 2024, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled that a Lloyds Bank LinkedIn advertisement misled consumers by creating the impression that renewable energy represented a significant proportion of Lloyds’ investments and financing activities.
- In June 2024, ClientEarth also disclosed, following a Freedom of Information request, that the Financial Conduct Authority had an active enforcement investigation concerning climate-related issues, although the identity of the company under investigation remains confidential.
ESG action in 2025
The increase in ESG-related actions during 2024 demonstrates a continuing trend towards greater scrutiny of corporate sustainability claims.
In February 2025, the Swiss consumer organisation Fédération Romande des Consommateurs (FRC) filed a complaint with prosecutors in Zurich concerning sportswear brand On. The complaint alleged that the company’s “Run. Recycle. Repeat.” marketing slogan, linked to its Cyclon subscription programme, was misleading because shoes returned under the programme had not, according to FRC, actually been recycled. On responded by stating that shoes were recycled in batches to improve efficiency.
During 2025, the Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) also fined logistics company GLS €8 million for unfair commercial practices relating to its environmental sustainability programme, Climate Protect. The authority concluded that the programme lacked transparency, was difficult to verify, and that the carbon offset certificates used were misleading, ambiguous or false. The case provides another example of corporate carbon offsetting claims being challenged and demonstrates the importance of ensuring that sustainability statements can be robustly substantiated.
Finally, in March 2025, the Citizens’ Arrest Network attempted to rely upon the statutory power of citizen’s arrest against executives at an energy company and Thames Water, alleging offences of public nuisance under section 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. The power for members of the public to make arrests is contained in section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Whilst longstanding, the power is subject to strict statutory conditions, including that the offence must be indictable, it must not be reasonably practicable for a constable to make the arrest instead, and the arresting person must reasonably believe that the arrest is necessary for one of the prescribed statutory reasons. The threshold is high, and any arrest made without satisfying these requirements will be unlawful.
New legislative powers
Until recently, businesses could be held to account for misleading commercial practices principally under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTRs), which implemented the EU’s Unfair Commercial Practices Directive.
From 6 April 2025, however, key provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act came into force. The legislation replaces significant aspects of the CPUTRs and gives the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) new direct enforcement powers, allowing it to determine whether companies have breached consumer law without first obtaining a court ruling. The CMA may also impose significant financial penalties of up to 10% of a company’s global turnover.
Conclusion
Developments over the past year demonstrate that both public interest groups and regulators are becoming increasingly willing, and increasingly well equipped, to challenge corporate sustainability claims. Whether claims are brought by regulators, campaign groups or private individuals, allegations of greenwashing can carry significant financial and reputational consequences.
Businesses should therefore ensure that ESG-related statements are accurate, evidence-based and capable of withstanding regulatory and legal scrutiny.
Further information
If you have any questions regarding this blog, please contact Sophie Wood in our Criminal team.
About the author
Sophie Wood is a Legal Director with extensive experience advising corporate and individual clients involved in a wide range of internal, criminal and regulatory investigations and public inquiries.
