German Bundestag debates implementation of EU requirements in competition law

On December 19, 2025, the German Bundestag debated the draft of a third law amending the Unfair Competition Act (UWG-E) introduced by the German government in its second and third readings. The focus of the draft law is the implementation of Directive (EU) 2024/825 amending Directives 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU with regard to empowering consumers for the green transition through better protection against unfair practices and better information (EmpCo Directive). The implementation of the EmpCo Directive will result in stricter regulation of environmental and climate-related advertising claims (green claims). This blog post presents and classifies the key changes. However, the future of the Green Claims Directive, which we discussed in our client information – Green Claims – Empowering Consumers Directive and Green Claims Directive, remains uncertain.

What are the consequences of introducing the term “ecological characteristics”?

The government draft includes “ecological characteristics” in the list of essential characteristics of a product in Section 5 (2) No. 1 UWG-E. This explicitly makes “ecological characteristics” a point of reference for any misleading advertising. This also applies to misleading omissions (Section 5a UWG), because according to the newly inserted Section 5b (3a) UWG-E, “ecological characteristics” are essential information to be provided to consumers. This addition to the wording of the law has no – or at least only minor – consequences for the application of the law. Case law already applies the competition law prohibitions on misleading advertising and information requirements to green claims, and does so particularly strictly. The explanatory memorandum to the law also states that the addition is merely for clarification purposes and is intended to take account of consumers' increased interest in sustainability issues.

What needs to be considered when making statements about future environmental performance?

Statements to consumers about future environmental performance must be substantiated with an implementation plan that meets the requirements of the newly inserted Section 5 (3) No. 4 UWG-E. The aim of this provision is to achieve greater reliability of advertising claims, for example with regard to the transition to CO₂ or climate neutrality within a certain period of time. It is envisaged that the implementation plan will be regularly reviewed by an independent external expert, Section 5 (3) No. 4 lit. b UWG-E. However, neither the wording of the law nor the explanatory memorandum, nor the EmpCo Directive or its recitals, make any statement about the intervals at which such regular reviews are necessary.

What are the new additions to the black list?

The appendix to Section 3 (3) UWG, the so-called black list, lists commercial practices that are always prohibited in relation to consumers.

According to the newly inserted No. 4b, environmental statements (Section 2 (2) No. 5 UWG-E) relating to the entire product or the entire business activity of the company, which in fact only apply to a specific aspect of the product or a specific activity of the company's business, are inadmissible per se. An environmental statement can be made explicitly or implicitly. It is a broad umbrella term that allows for a certain degree of flexibility in terms of development.

According to the newly inserted No. 4a, making a general environmental statement (Section 2 (2) No. 1 UWG-E) is inadmissible if the entrepreneur cannot prove any underlying recognized outstanding environmental performance (Section 2 (2) No. 2 UWG-E). A general environmental statement is a short, striking statement that, taken on its own, has no verifiable meaning based on objective criteria. This includes, for example, phrases such as “green,” “climate-friendly,” “environmentally friendly,” or “energy-efficient.” Similar terms are also covered if they suggest outstanding environmental performance or create a corresponding impression.

The distinction between a general environmental claim and a more specific, explicit environmental claim is made primarily on the basis of the criterion that the general environmental claim is either not explained at all or not explained clearly and prominently in the same medium.

Furthermore, according to the newly inserted No. 4c, a statement based on the compensation of greenhouse gas emissions and according to which a product has a neutral, reduced, or positive impact on the environment in terms of greenhouse gas emissions is prohibited per se. This includes terms such as “climate neutral,” “CO2 positive,” or “climate-friendly.” However, CO₂ compensation statements are permissible if they are based on the actual impact on the life cycle of the product in question and do not refer to the compensation of greenhouse gas emissions outside the product's value chain.

In addition, according to the newly inserted No. 2a, the use of a sustainability label (Section 2 (2) No. 4 UWG-E) that is neither based on a certification system (Section 2 (2) No. 6 UWG-E) nor has been established by government agencies is prohibited. In contrast to environmental claims, the scope of a sustainability label is not limited to environmental aspects, but may also refer to social characteristics of a product, a process, or business activities.

What happens next?

The legislative changes presented here will come into force on September 27, 2026. By then, companies must have adapted to the new regulations and, in particular, modified their products and packaging. During the legislative process, the Bundesrat (Federal Council) advocated for an extension of the deadline, citing companies' production cycles, in order to avoid economic damage and waste. However, the federal government saw no room for maneuver in this regard with regard to the EU's implementation deadlines. At the same time, the federal government intends to raise this issue with the European Commission and work to ensure that the interpretation guidelines for the EmpCo Directive take these circumstances into account. Competition law case law already recognizes that companies can be granted appropriate use-up, disposal, and conversion periods if disproportionate hardship arises in individual cases.

We will continue to keep you informed about developments relating to green claims.

Many thanks to Markus Menje for his valuable help in creating this post.