> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.intercepta.ai/blog/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Green claims in 2026: the evidence has to exist first
- URL: https://www.intercepta.ai/blog/green-claims-evidence-first/
- Published: 2026-09-24T10:11:15.000Z
- Updated: 2026-09-24T10:11:15.000Z
- Description: The European Union prohibits several kinds of environmental claims outright from 27 September 2026. The United States, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Canada each use a different instrument, and in all six the evidence supporting a green claim is expected to exist when the claim is made.
- Author: Edward Sweigart
- Tags: Marketing Compliance, Regulatory, advertising compliance, continuous validation, #rail

From 27 September 2026, the European Union prohibits several kinds of environmental claims outright. It is not the only jurisdiction that has tightened the rules that apply to green claims. The United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Canada have each done so, using different instruments. In the United States, the federal regime is unchanged, and California has legislated its own rules on recyclability claims and carbon-neutral claims.

The Empowering Consumers Directive, Directive (EU) 2024/825, adds environmental practices to the blacklist in Annex I of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. A blacklisted practice is unfair whatever the context, so the authority does not have to show that any consumer was misled. The banned practices include the use of “environmentally friendly” as a generic claim where the trader cannot demonstrate recognised excellent environmental performance, and “climate neutral” on the strength of offsetting. The companion analysis of the European Union marketing compliance calendar examines the Directive and its dates, so it is summarised here only as the point of comparison. None of the five jurisdictions examined here has an equivalent blacklist for environmental claims at national level. Each applies a general prohibition on misleading conduct, and Canada and New Zealand add rules on the evidence a claim requires.

The first question is therefore whether liability is triggered by the type of the claim or by proof that the claim misleads in its context. The second question is what penalty applies once liability is established. Three of the five jurisdictions have tightened their regimes since 2024 without adopting a blacklist of environmental claims. The United Kingdom gave its competition authority the power to fine without going to court, Australia doubled the fixed figure in its maximum penalty to A$100 million, and Canada added environmental provisions that place the burden of proof on the advertiser, alongside its general misleading-representation test. New Zealand has required traders to hold reasonable grounds for a claim since 2014, and a Bill to raise its penalties is before Parliament. The United States federal regime has changed on neither question.

![Table of six jurisdictions showing what triggers liability for a green claim and what changed. The European Union prohibits listed Annex I practices from 27 September 2026. In the United States the FTC must prove deception or missing substantiation and the Green Guides are unchanged since 2012. The United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Canada apply a misleading-claim test, with CMA fines up to 10 per cent of global turnover from 6 April 2025, an Australian fixed figure of A$100 million from 28 March 2026, a pending New Zealand penalty rise, and a Canadian business-level provision narrowed on 26 March 2026.](https://www.intercepta.ai/blog/content/images/2026/09/fig1-liability-status-board--2400x1400--v4.png)

The European Union and California prohibit certain claim types outright. Elsewhere liability depends on the test each market applies, and the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada have all changed their rules since 2024.

## The United States federal regime is unchanged while California legislates

At federal level, liability in the United States is based on Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act, 15 U.S.C. 45, which prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices”, interpreted for environmental claims by the Green Guides at 16 CFR Part 260, issued by the FTC. The Green Guides are administrative guidance rather than binding law, so the FTC must show that a claim is deceptive or unsubstantiated, and federal law contains no list of prohibited environmental terms.

The Guides set out a substantiation principle. A general environmental benefit claim such as “eco-friendly” is treated as deceptive where the marketer cannot substantiate it, on the reasoning in section 260.4 that unqualified claims of that kind “likely convey a wide range of meanings” and that “it is highly unlikely that marketers can substantiate all reasonable interpretations of these claims”. The Guides provide that sellers of carbon offsets “should employ competent and reliable scientific and accounting methods” to quantify claimed reductions, at section 260.5, and they do not prohibit an offset-based carbon-neutral claim.

On recyclable claims, marketers “can make unqualified recyclable claims” where recycling is available to a substantial majority of consumers, which the Guides fix at 60 per cent, and “should qualify all recyclable claims” below that level, at section 260.12.

The Green Guides were last revised in 2012\. The FTC opened a review in December 2022 and held a workshop on recyclable claims in May 2023, yet no revised Guides and no proposed rule have followed. In April 2022, the FTC obtained civil penalties of US$5.5 million from two national retailers over rayon marketed as bamboo.

Those penalties were agreed in settlements of FTC complaints alleging deceptive marketing, whereas California’s recyclability statute, Public Resources Code section 42355.51, added by Senate Bill 343 in 2021, provides that a product or packaging displaying the chasing-arrows symbol “is deemed to be a deceptive or misleading claim” unless it meets objective statewide recyclability criteria, with no need to show that any consumer was misled. In method, the provision mirrors the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, which lists practices “in all circumstances considered unfair”. The criteria depend on a material characterisation study that California’s recycling department, CalRecycle, published on 4 April 2025\. The statute exempts products and packaging manufactured up to 18 months after that publication, so the restriction applies to those manufactured from 4 October 2026\. A separate statute, the Voluntary Carbon Market Disclosures Act, Assembly Bill 1305, in effect from 1 January 2024, requires a company making a carbon-neutral or net-zero claim, or trading offsets in California, to publish the basis of the claim on its website, without prohibiting the claim itself.

![Three cards setting out how a green claim becomes unlawful. The first basis, prohibition by type, covers the European Union from 27 September 2026 and the California recyclability symbol, with no misled consumer needed. The second, the misleading-claim test, covers the United States, United Kingdom and Australia, with liability assessed after publication. The third adds an evidence rule, with reasonable grounds required in New Zealand and the advertiser proving the claim in Canada.](https://www.intercepta.ai/blog/content/images/2026/09/fig2-three-routes--2400x1400--v4.png)

The same green claim can be unlawful on a different basis depending on the market, and evidence that satisfies one test may not satisfy another.

Federal liability requires the FTC to prove after publication that a claim is deceptive or unsubstantiated, and California’s recyclability statute, the state rule examined here, deems a symbol deceptive by operation of law. The FTC Policy Statement Regarding Advertising Substantiation of 23 November 1984 sets the timing, providing that “the reasonable basis doctrine requires that firms have substantiation before disseminating a claim”. The substantiation is examined only if the FTC or another party later questions the claim.

## The United Kingdom keeps the misleading-claim test and adds a turnover penalty

In the United Kingdom, an environmental claim is subject to consumer-protection law, and the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) set out how that law applies to such claims in the Green Claims Code, published in September 2021\. The Code sets six principles, “Claims must be truthful and accurate”, “Claims must be clear and unambiguous”, “Claims must not omit or hide important relevant information”, “Comparisons must be fair and meaningful”, “Claims must consider the full life cycle of the product or service” and “Claims must be substantiated”. The Code does not itself have the force of law, and it was written on the basis of the prohibitions on misleading actions and misleading omissions in the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 replaced those Regulations for practices from 6 April 2025\. Under the Act, the CMA can decide for itself that consumer law has been infringed, without first going to court, and can impose a penalty of up to 10 per cent of a business’s global annual turnover. The Act also contains a schedule of practices banned in all circumstances, Schedule 20, which lists 32 practices, most of them retained from the older regime, with new additions that include fake consumer reviews. None of the 32 is specific to environmental claims, although the ban on displaying a trust mark, quality mark or equivalent without the necessary authorisation applies to an environmental label as it does to any other. The United Kingdom now has both a per-se blacklist and a direct-fining power, and neither is specific to green claims. A misleading environmental claim remains subject to the general misleading-practices provisions, and a breach is now subject to the turnover penalty.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) applies the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) Code, whose section 11 governs environmental claims. Rule 11.3 provides that “Absolute claims must be supported by a high level of substantiation”, and rule 11.4 provides that “Marketers must base environmental claims on the full life cycle of the advertised product, unless the marketing communication states otherwise, and must make clear the limits of the life cycle.” In two rulings of 15 July 2026 on airline offsetting claims, examined in a separate Intercepta AI analysis, the ASA upheld complaints under rules 3.1, 3.7, 11.1 and 11.3, finding that the evidence showed an offsetting programme in operation but did not show that the emissions from specific flights would be fully offset.

A further rule applies in financial services. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) anti-greenwashing rule, ESG 4.3.1R, in force since 31 May 2024, requires any reference to the sustainability characteristics of a product or service to be “consistent with the sustainability characteristics of the product or service” and “fair, clear and not misleading”. The FCA finalised guidance, FG24/3, provides that sustainability references should be “correct and capable of being substantiated”, and that claims “should be capable of being substantiated at the point in time at which they are made”. The rule applies to every firm the FCA authorises when it communicates with clients in the United Kingdom in relation to a product or service, or communicates or approves a financial promotion for communication to a person in the United Kingdom.

In the United Kingdom, three regulators apply a misleading-claim test to environmental claims, each through its own instrument, the CMA under the consumer regime, the ASA under the CAP Code and the FCA in financial services. Since 6 April 2025, the CMA can also penalise a breach of the consumer regime directly, without court proceedings.

## Australia relies on general law and has raised its maximum penalty

Australia has no environmental blacklist and no requirement for a claim to be approved before publication. An environmental claim is subject to the general prohibitions in the Australian Consumer Law, set out in Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010\. Section 18 prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct, section 29 false or misleading representations about goods and services, and section 33 conduct liable to mislead the public as to the nature of goods. Each of the three requires the conduct to mislead, or to be likely or liable to mislead, so a green claim is treated as an ordinary misleading-conduct matter. A claim about a future matter, such as a net-zero target, is treated differently. Under section 4, such a representation is taken to be misleading if the business did not have reasonable grounds for making it, and the business is taken not to have had reasonable grounds unless evidence to the contrary is adduced.

In December 2023, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) published final guidance, “Making environmental claims, a guide for business”, setting out eight principles, among them “Make accurate and truthful claims”, “Have evidence to back up your claims”, “Avoid broad and unqualified claims” and “Visual elements should not give the wrong impression”. The guidance is intended to “help businesses understand and comply with their obligations under the ACL when making environmental claims”, and the ACCC states that it cannot provide a definitive interpretation of the law, since that is the role of the courts.

Exposure has, however, increased in two respects. The maximum penalty for a company was already the higher of A$50 million and either three times the benefit obtained or, where the court cannot determine that benefit, 30 per cent of adjusted turnover during the breach turnover period. From 28 March 2026, the fixed figure doubled to A$100 million for each contravention. The ACCC has also listed greenwashing among its enforcement priorities since 2022, most recently for 2026-27, and has taken matters to the Federal Court, where a household-goods manufacturer was ordered to pay A$8.25 million in April 2025 over recycled-content claims on bin liners that overstated the ocean origin of the plastic.

Financial products are a different regulator’s remit. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) enforces the equivalent misleading-conduct prohibitions in the ASIC Act against greenwashing in financial products, and has secured three Federal Court penalties in succession, A$11.3 million against a superannuation fund in August 2024, A$12.9 million against an investment manager in September 2024, and A$10.5 million against a second superannuation fund in March 2025, each for overstating sustainability screens that were not fully applied.

The ACCC can also require a business to produce information or documents capable of substantiating a claim already made, through a substantiation notice under section 219 of the Australian Consumer Law. Environmental claims in Australia are assessed under the misleading-claim test, with ACCC guidance and no blacklist, and a breach is subject to the maximum penalties set out above.

## New Zealand pairs the misleading-claim test with a duty to substantiate

New Zealand resembles Australia, a general misleading-conduct regime with no environmental blacklist, and adds a feature that Australia applies only to claims about future matters. The governing statute is the Fair Trading Act 1986, enforced by the Commerce Commission. Section 9 prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct, section 10 conduct liable to mislead the public as to the nature of goods, and section 13 false or misleading representations about goods and services. Those provisions apply the same after-the-fact test as the other markets, whether the claim misled or was likely to mislead.

The feature in question is section 12A, inserted in 2014, which prohibits an unsubstantiated representation, meaning a representation for which the maker does not, when it is made, have “reasonable grounds”, “irrespective of whether the representation is false or misleading”. A green claim can therefore breach the Fair Trading Act because the trader had no reasonable grounds for it at the moment of publication, whether or not it turns out to mislead, and section 12B provides that a court must have regard to all the circumstances, including any research the trader undertook and the sources of information it relied on before making the claim. Section 12A contains no provision placing the burden of proof on the trader, and it is not a pre-publication approval requirement, yet the statute fixes the timing, requiring the evidence to exist when the claim is made.

The Commerce Commission sets out its expectations in the Environmental Claims Guidelines of July 2020, which list seven principles, “Be truthful and accurate”, “Be specific”, “Substantiate your claims”, “Use plain language”, “Do not exaggerate”, “Take care when relying on tests or surveys” and “Consider the overall impression”. The Commission states that the guidelines reflect its view and are “not intended to be legally binding”, and liability arises under the Act. A contravention of section 10, 12A or 13 is an offence punishable by a fine of up to NZ$600,000 for a company and NZ$200,000 for an individual, for each offence. A Fair Trading Amendment Bill introduced on 13 May 2026, before a select committee at the time of writing, would raise both maximums and make most breaches subject to a civil standard. For a company the new maximum would be NZ$5 million, the value of the transaction, or three times the gain made or the loss avoided where that can be readily ascertained, whichever is greater.

In financial products, enforcement belongs to the Financial Markets Authority (FMA), under the fair-dealing provisions of the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013\. The FMA censured a KiwiSaver provider in December 2024 over advertisements that represented that its funds excluded certain investments the funds in fact held, a material departure from the fair-dealing requirements. The FMA guidance on sustainability-related disclosure, issued in May 2026, provides that an issuer should support a sustainability claim with evidence at the time the claim is made, which applies the same timing expectation to financial-markets disclosure.

## Canada placed the burden of proof on the advertiser, then narrowed the rule

Canada’s regime resembles the European method on the question of burden, since the advertiser must prove its environmental claim, and part of the 2024 change was narrowed in 2026\. Bill C-59, which received Royal Assent on 20 June 2024, added two greenwashing provisions to the Competition Act. A representation about a product’s environmental benefits must be “based on an adequate and proper test, the proof of which lies on the person making the representation”, at paragraph 74.01(1)(b.1). A representation about the environmental benefits of a business or a business activity, such as a pledge of net-zero emissions by a future date, must be “based on adequate and proper substantiation”, and in the original 2024 text that substantiation had to accord with “internationally recognized methodology”, at paragraph 74.01(1)(b.2).

Both provisions place the burden of proof on the advertiser, so once the Competition Bureau establishes that an environmental claim was made to promote a product or a business interest, the business itself must show that the claim was supported, and the same burden applies where a private applicant brings a product-level claim. The general provision on false or misleading representations, paragraph 74.01(1)(a), continues to apply alongside the environmental provisions, and under it the burden is on the Bureau, which must prove that the claim is false or misleading in a material respect. In its final guidance, issued on 5 June 2025, the Bureau reads the words “based on” as requiring the testing or the substantiation to exist before the claim is made.

For a company, the administrative monetary penalty for deceptive marketing is up to the greater of C$10 million (C$15 million for a subsequent order), three times the benefit obtained or, where that benefit cannot reasonably be determined, 3 per cent of annual worldwide gross revenues. Since 20 June 2025, a private party may also seek the leave of the Competition Tribunal to bring a deceptive-marketing case, greenwashing included, which adds a further route of enforcement.

The narrowing was enacted in the Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1, Bill C-15, which received Royal Assent on 26 March 2026 and made two changes to the business-level provision. It removed the requirement that substantiation accord with internationally recognised methodology, so a business-level claim must now be based on “adequate and proper substantiation” without that qualifier, and it removed the right of private applicants to bring a business-level claim, leaving those cases to the Bureau. The product-level test and the reversed burden remain in force. The Bureau’s published guidance still describes the earlier test, with a notice that it will be updated.

![Two cards comparing Canada’s greenwashing provisions. From 20 June 2024 a product claim needed an adequate and proper test, a business claim needed internationally recognised methodology, and private applicants could apply from 20 June 2025. From 26 March 2026 the methodology requirement is removed and private applicants are barred at business level, while the reversed burden remains for both.](https://www.intercepta.ai/blog/content/images/2026/09/fig3-canada-c15--2400x1400--v4.png)

Bill C-15 narrowed the business-level provision and left the reversed burden in place.

Of the five markets, Canada is the only one with a statutory provision that places the burden of proving an environmental claim on the advertiser, the position that mirrors the European Union’s on the question of burden. Even after the narrowing of March 2026, that reversed burden means the testing or the substantiation has to exist before the claim is made. New Zealand’s section 12A also requires the evidence to exist when the claim is made, although it contains no equivalent provision on the burden of proof.

## The expectation the five jurisdictions share with the European Union

The methods differ, and so does the instrument each market has used. The European Union prohibits certain claim types outright, the United Kingdom has kept the misleading-claim test and given the CMA a direct-fining power, and Australia has kept the same test and raised its maximum penalty. New Zealand keeps that test as well and adds a free-standing duty to hold reasonable grounds when the claim is made, and Canada places the burden of proving an environmental claim on the advertiser, with the business-level provision narrowed in March 2026\. The United States federal regime has not changed since 2012, and California has legislated that a recyclability symbol is deemed a deceptive or misleading claim unless the material meets statewide criteria. Read as a group, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada have each tightened the regime that applies to environmental claims since 2024, some through new instruments and others through new powers and penalties attached to existing law, and New Zealand’s evidence duty dates from 2014, with its penalty increase still before Parliament.

Common to all six is the expectation that the evidence supporting an environmental claim exists when the claim is made. The European Union expresses it through prohibitions that apply from 27 September 2026, under which a generic environmental claim is prohibited unless the trader can demonstrate recognised excellent environmental performance, and a neutrality claim for a product based on offsetting is prohibited whatever the evidence. Canada does so by placing the proof on the advertiser, whereas New Zealand requires the maker to hold reasonable grounds when the claim is made, whatever the claim’s effect. The FTC (US) reasonable-basis doctrine, the substantiation rule in the CAP (UK) Code, the evidence principle in the ACCC (Australia) guidance and the FCA (UK) guidance on substantiation at the time a claim is made state the same expectation, each in its own terms.

![Timeline in three zones showing when evidence for a green claim must exist and when proof is demanded. Before publication, the United States reasonable-basis doctrine and CAP Code rule 3.7. At publication, the European Union requirement, for a generic claim under Annex I point 4a, that recognised excellent environmental performance be demonstrable, New Zealand section 12A, the Canadian requirement that testing already exist, and the ACCC evidence principle in guidance. After publication, the Australian substantiation notice under section 219 and proof on challenge in the United Kingdom and United States.](https://www.intercepta.ai/blog/content/images/2026/09/fig4-evidence-timing--2400x1400--v4.png)

The instruments differ in force, from doctrine to statute, yet under each of them the advertiser is expected to hold the evidence when the claim is made.

The practical consequence for a company advertising across these markets is that one environmental claim is subject to a different rule in each of them, and can be lawful in one market and exposed in another on the same day. From 27 September 2026, a product carbon-neutrality claim made on the strength of offsetting is prohibited by type in the European Union. In the five markets it remains subject to the general tests, with the evidence duty in New Zealand and the reversed burden in Canada applying in addition, and California requires the basis of such a claim to be published on the company’s website.

## A claim is validated market by market

Since the rule differs by market and the evidence must exist at publication, validating an environmental claim is a continuing task rather than a one-time approval. A claim approved against the rules of one market remains unapproved against the others, and a claim lawful when it was published can be put to proof later, in Canada by the reversed burden, in Australia by a substantiation notice, and in the United States and the United Kingdom once a regulator or a private party challenges it. The obligation attaches at publication and then persists while the content remains live, which is the substance of Intercepta AI’s analysis of compliance debt.

For the marketing team writing the claims, the operative fact is where the communication is published, since each jurisdiction applies its own rules to a claim. The final decision belongs to the function that holds sign-off, typically the compliance team, whose task is to know which rule governs each claim in every market where it is published, and whether the evidence supporting it would satisfy that rule today.

## Validate before you publish. Keep the record.

Across the five jurisdictions set out here, an environmental claim is tested by a different instrument in each. The expectation in every one of them is the same, that the evidence must exist when the claim is made. An approval in one market has no effect in another, and a claim can be challenged after publication, whatever its position when it was approved. Intercepta AI was built for this problem, since it validates the environmental claims in a piece of content against the rules of each covered jurisdiction where the content is published, and it does so before publication.

The scanner covers 1,100+ regulatory rules across the United States, United Kingdom, European Union, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and each scan returns a documented report that maps each issue to the specific regulation it references, with remediation guidance for your compliance team to review. Marketing teams validate before publication, compliance teams hold a documented regulatory record, and every decision on every finding remains in the remit of your compliance team.

[Your first three scans are free](https://www.intercepta.ai/?utm%5Fsource=blog&utm%5Fmedium=cta&utm%5Fcampaign=green-claims-evidence-first-20260924&utm%5Fcontent=cta-button)

## Cross-references

- For the European Union changes with which this piece compares the other five markets, see [the analysis of the EU marketing compliance calendar](https://www.intercepta.ai/blog/eu-marketing-compliance-2026/?utm%5Fsource=blog&utm%5Fmedium=internal&utm%5Fcampaign=green-claims-evidence-first-20260924&utm%5Fcontent=cross-reference).
- For the case-by-case assessment of environmental claims under the CAP Code, see [the analysis of the Advertising Standards Authority rulings of 15 July 2026](https://www.intercepta.ai/blog/asa-rulings-15-july-2026/?utm%5Fsource=blog&utm%5Fmedium=internal&utm%5Fcampaign=green-claims-evidence-first-20260924&utm%5Fcontent=cross-reference).
- For the expectation that evidence exists before a claim is made, applied to the United States substantiation standard, see [the analysis of a claim of clinical proof](https://www.intercepta.ai/blog/ftc-substantiation-clinically-proven/?utm%5Fsource=blog&utm%5Fmedium=internal&utm%5Fcampaign=green-claims-evidence-first-20260924&utm%5Fcontent=cross-reference).
- For the obligation that attaches at publication and then persists, see [the analysis of compliance debt](https://www.intercepta.ai/blog/the-compliance-debt-hiding-in-your-content-library/?utm%5Fsource=blog&utm%5Fmedium=internal&utm%5Fcampaign=green-claims-evidence-first-20260924&utm%5Fcontent=cross-reference).

## Sources

### United States

- Federal Trade Commission Act, Section 5, 15 U.S.C. 45.
- [Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (Green Guides), 16 CFR Part 260, sections 260.4, 260.5 and 260.12.](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-260?ref=intercepta.ai)
- [Federal Trade Commission, Green Guides topic page, recording the review opened in December 2022 and the recyclable-claims workshop of May 2023.](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/topics/truth-advertising/green-guides?ref=intercepta.ai)
- [Federal Trade Commission, Policy Statement Regarding Advertising Substantiation, 23 November 1984.](https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/ftc-policy-statement-regarding-advertising-substantiation?ref=intercepta.ai)
- Federal Trade Commission, press release of 8 April 2022 announcing US$5.5 million in civil penalties over rayon marketed as bamboo. Subject firms anonymised in this piece under house policy; party-naming URL withheld under the sources-link policy.
- [California Public Resources Code section 42355.51 (Senate Bill 343, 2021).](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes%5FdisplaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=42355.51.&lawCode=PRC&ref=intercepta.ai)
- [California Business and Professions Code section 17580.5.](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes%5FdisplaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=17580.5.&lawCode=BPC&ref=intercepta.ai)
- [California Health and Safety Code sections 44475 to 44475.3 (Voluntary Carbon Market Disclosures Act, Assembly Bill 1305, 2023).](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill%5Fid=202320240AB1305&ref=intercepta.ai)
- [CalRecycle, SB 343 Material Characterization Study, final findings, published 4 April 2025.](https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Docs/Publications/137532?ref=intercepta.ai)

### United Kingdom

- [Competition and Markets Authority, Green Claims Code, “Making environmental claims on goods and services”, September 2021.](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/green-claims-code-making-environmental-claims/environmental-claims-on-goods-and-services?ref=intercepta.ai)
- [Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, Part 4 and Schedule 20.](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2024/13/contents?ref=intercepta.ai)
- [Competition and Markets Authority, Unfair commercial practices (CMA207), confirming application to practices from 6 April 2025, 18 November 2025.](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/unfair-commercial-practices-cma207/unfair-commercial-practices?ref=intercepta.ai)
- [Competition and Markets Authority, direct consumer enforcement guidance (CMA200), penalties up to 10 per cent of global turnover.](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/direct-consumer-enforcement-guidance-cma200?ref=intercepta.ai)
- [Advertising Standards Authority, CAP Code (Edition 12), section 11 (Environmental claims), with rules 3.1 and 3.7 in section 3 (Misleading advertising).](https://www.asa.org.uk/type/non%5Fbroadcast/code%5Fsection/11.html?ref=intercepta.ai)
- Advertising Standards Authority, rulings A26-1326605 and A26-1326610, 15 July 2026, airline offsetting claims. Subject firms anonymised in this piece under house policy; party-naming URLs withheld under the sources-link policy.
- [Financial Conduct Authority, anti-greenwashing rule ESG 4.3.1R, in force 31 May 2024.](https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/ESG/4/3.html?ref=intercepta.ai)
- [Financial Conduct Authority, finalised guidance FG24/3, paragraphs 2.17 and 2.19.](https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/finalised-guidance/fg24-3.pdf?ref=intercepta.ai)

### Australia

- [Competition and Consumer Act 2010, Schedule 2 (Australian Consumer Law), sections 4, 18, 29, 33 and 219.](https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/latest/text?ref=intercepta.ai)
- [Treasury Laws Amendment (Doubling Penalties for ACCC Enforcement) Act 2026 (C2026A00019), commenced 28 March 2026.](https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2026A00019/asmade/text?ref=intercepta.ai)
- [Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, “Fines and penalties”, maximum penalties for a company, updated 13 July 2026.](https://www.accc.gov.au/business/compliance-and-enforcement/fines-and-penalties?ref=intercepta.ai)
- [Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, “Making environmental claims, a guide for business”, December 2023.](https://www.accc.gov.au/about-us/publications/making-environmental-claims-a-guide-for-business?ref=intercepta.ai)
- [Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, greenwashing internet sweep, 2 March 2023.](https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-greenwashing-internet-sweep-unearths-widespread-concerning-claims?ref=intercepta.ai)
- [Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, compliance and enforcement priorities 2026-27.](https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/compliance-enforcement-priorities-2026-27-factsheet.pdf?ref=intercepta.ai)
- Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, media release 34/25, 14 April 2025, A$8.25 million penalty. Subject firm anonymised in this piece under house policy; party-naming URL withheld under the sources-link policy.
- Australian Securities and Investments Commission, media releases 24-173MR (2 August 2024), 24-213MR (25 September 2024) and 25-042MR (18 March 2025), financial-product greenwashing penalties. Subject firms anonymised in this piece under house policy; party-naming URLs withheld under the sources-link policy.

### New Zealand

- [Fair Trading Act 1986, sections 9, 10, 12A, 12B, 13 and 40.](https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0121/latest/whole.html?ref=intercepta.ai)
- [Commerce Commission (NZ), Environmental Claims Guidelines, July 2020.](https://comcom.govt.nz/%5F%5Fdata/assets/pdf%5Ffile/0017/220247/Environmental-claims-guidance-July-2020.pdf?ref=intercepta.ai)
- [Commerce Commission (NZ), Laws we enforce, maximum penalties.](https://www.comcom.govt.nz/about-us/our-role/laws-we-enforce/?ref=intercepta.ai)
- [New Zealand Parliament, Fair Trading Amendment Bill, introduced 13 May 2026, before the Finance and Expenditure Committee.](https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/sc/make-a-submission/document/54SCFIN%5FSCF%5F21790F4B-6F1E-49F0-6260-08DEB083C0EA/fair-trading-amendment-bill?ref=intercepta.ai)
- [Fair Trading Amendment Bill 2026 (2026 No 299), new sections 40A and 41G, maximum fines and pecuniary penalties.](https://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2026/299/en/latest/?ref=intercepta.ai)
- [Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013, Part 2 (fair dealing).](https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2013/0069/latest/whole.html?ref=intercepta.ai)
- [Financial Markets Authority (NZ), sustainability-related disclosure guidance, 12 May 2026.](https://www.fma.govt.nz/library/guidance-library/sustainability-related-disclosure-guidance/?ref=intercepta.ai)
- Financial Markets Authority (NZ), censure media release, 18 December 2024\. Subject anonymised in this piece under house policy; party-naming URL withheld under the sources-link policy.

### Canada

- [Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34, section 74.01, current text, paragraphs 74.01(1)(a), (b.1) and (b.2).](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-34/section-74.01.html?ref=intercepta.ai)
- [Competition Act, section 74.1, administrative monetary penalties, paragraph 74.1(1)(c).](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-34/section-74.1.html?ref=intercepta.ai)
- [Competition Act, section 74.01, archived version in force 20 June 2024 to 25 March 2026, carrying the original “internationally recognized methodology” wording.](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-34/section-74.01-20240620.html?ref=intercepta.ai)
- [Competition Bureau, “Environmental claims and the Competition Act”, final guidelines, 5 June 2025.](https://competition-bureau.canada.ca/en/how-we-foster-competition/education-and-outreach/publications/environmental-claims-and-competition-act?ref=intercepta.ai)
- [Competition Bureau, “Significant changes to strengthen the Competition Act become law”, 25 June 2024, recording Bill C-59 in force and private access from 20 June 2025.](https://www.canada.ca/en/competition-bureau/news/2024/06/significant-changes-to-strengthen-the-competition-act-become-law.html?ref=intercepta.ai)
- [Bill C-59 (Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023), Royal Assent 20 June 2024, LEGISinfo.](https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-59?ref=intercepta.ai)
- [Bill C-15 (Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1), Royal Assent 26 March 2026, LEGISinfo.](https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/c-15?ref=intercepta.ai)

### European Union (anchor)

- [Directive (EU) 2024/825 on empowering consumers for the green transition, amending Directive 2005/29/EC (Unfair Commercial Practices Directive), Annex I points 2a, 4a, 4b and 4c.](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/825/oj?ref=intercepta.ai)