Abstract: In the context of environmental protection and sustainable development becoming a predominant global objective, consumers are increasingly inclined to choose products, services, and companies that claim to be environmentally friendly or sustainable. Capturing this trend, many businesses have engaged in “greenwashing” - making sustainability-related claims or commitments they cannot demonstrate. Not only such misleading advertisements distort fair competition among enterprises but they also harm consumers’ legitimate interests. Consequently, greenwashing has recently become the target of strict enforcement by judicial and competition authorities in several jurisdictions. Based on an analysis of legal frameworks and recent enforcement practices in the European Union, France, and Germany, this article proposes several policy recommendations to improve Viet Nam’s legal framework on environment-related advertising.
Keywords: greenwashing, misleading advertisement, unfair competition practice
1. Introduction
The year 2025 recorded a notable trend in disputes related to acts of unfair competition worldwide: the trend of sanctioning “greenwashing”. In many countries, enterprises have continuously been sanctioned by courts or competition authorities for making false or potentially misleading “green claims" to consumers.
In August 2025, the Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) imposed a fine of EUR 3.5 million on Giorgio Armani S.p.A. and G.A. Operations S.p.A. for making sustainability statements and commitments to corporate social responsibility, particularly regarding the assurance of occupational safety for workers, while continuing to source goods from contractors that did not ensure occupational safety.[1] In the same month, the AGCM also issued a decision imposing a fine of EUR 1 million on Infinite Styles Services Co. Ltd - the company managing Shein’s commercial websites in the European Union (EU) - for making misleading statements that confused consumers about the sustainability of fabric materials.[2] In Germany, Apple was also held by the court to have misled consumers and violated competition law regulations when advertising the Apple Watch as “carbon neutral”.[3] Most recently, on 23 October 2025, the Paris Court rendered a judgment concluding that TotalEnergies and TotalEnergies Electricité et Gaz France had engaged in acts of unfair competition and violated advertising and competition law regulations by making dishonest commitments regarding the objective of “carbon neutrality”.[4] These cases serve as a warning to many enterprises that continue to abuse concepts of environmental protection and sustainable development in their communication strategies despite not actually meeting, or even acting contrary to, such claims.
In Viet Nam, in the context where enterprises frequently abuse sustainability certifications on packaging or make claims related to environmental protection, animal protection, and similar issues in communication campaigns for commercial purposes, the global trend of strict enforcement against “greenwashing” represents an important opportunity for Viet Nam to review and improve its legal system on advertising and competition. In this regard, the development of legal provisions to identify “greenwashing” as a form of unfair competition constitutes an important theoretical foundation for addressing such conduct.
This article focuses on analyzing the legal framework of the European Union (EU), as well as the laws and enforcement practice in France and Germany, in identifying “greenwashing” acts from the perspective of competition law and advertising law, thereby offering several policy suggestions aimed at improving Vietnamese law in this field, contributing to the assurance of commercial transparency and the promotion of sustainable development.
2. The trend of "greenwashing" advertising
“Greenwashing” is a concept proposed by environmental activist Jay Westerveld in 1986 to criticize the practice of hotels encouraging customers to reuse towels in order to reduce water consumption, while failing to implement any other truly effective measures to protect the environment.[5] Since then, the term has been used to describe situations in which enterprises make misleading statements, advertisements, or commitments claiming that their activities, or a specific product or service, make a positive contribution to sustainable development.
For several decades, “greenwashing” has been employed by many enterprises as a communication strategy to attract customers. Scholars in the fields of economics and communication have pointed out that “greenwashing” constitutes the provision of misleading information intended to deceive or confuse customers.[6] However, it is only in recent years that “greenwashing” has gradually become an issue of concern within the legal field.
In practice, “greenwashing” has attracted the attention of legal scholars and practitioners following a series of cases in which multinational corporations were accused of false advertising for claiming that a specific product was “carbon neutral” or that an enterprise was committed to contributing to sustainable development, while continuing to invest in projects causing serious environmental pollution.
In the context where many enterprises are abusing the concepts of “green” and “sustainable” in commercial promotion activities, while countries are continuously striving to reduce emissions and consumers tend to favor environmentally friendly enterprises, products, and services, Viet Nam needs to promptly improve its legal framework to ensure honesty and accountability in advertising activities, while at the same time promoting the implementation of sustainable development commitments.
3. Experience in identifying "greenwashing" advertising worldwide
3.1. EU Law
Competition law in the EU is not governed through a Regulation, but through Directives that must be transposed into national law by the Member States. Currently, Directive 2005/29/EC of 11 May 2005[1] governs unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the EU. This Directive has been amended and supplemented by Directive (EU) 2019/2161 of 27 November 2019[2] and Directive (EU) 2024/825 of 28 February 2024.[3][1] This Directive was required to be transposed no later than 12 June 2007 and applied in the EU Member States no later than 12 December 2007.[2] It was required to be transposed no later than 28 November 2021 and applied in the EU Member States no later than 28 May 2022.[3] It is required to be transposed no later than 27 March 2026 and applied in the EU Member States no later than 27 September 2026.
Article 6(1) of Directive 2005/29/EC provides that “a commercial practice shall be regarded as misleading if it contains false information and is therefore untruthful or in any way, including overall presentation, deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer, even if the information is factually correct, and in any case causes or is likely to cause him to take a transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise”. Misleading information may relate to “the main characteristics of the product, such as … its environmental or social impact”[10] or to “environmental claims relating to future environmental performance without clear, objective, public and verifiable commitments”.[11]
In other words, under current EU law, “greenwashing” advertising may be considered an act of unfair competition if the conditions regarding cause, consequence, and the causal link between these two elements are satisfied. As regards cause, the conduct must constitute a commercial practice and involve the provision of misleading information. As regards consequence, the consumer has made a choice that he or she would not have made in the absence of such misleading information. As regards the causal link, the conduct must create confusion for the “average consumer”, even where the information provided is factually correct. However, EU competition Directives do not provide clear guidance on the criteria for determining causation, in particular whether the conduct must constitute the sole or exclusive cause (sole causation/exclusive causation) or may merely be one of the factual causes (‘but for’ causation/factual causation).
3.2. French Law
In France, provisions relating to acts of unfair competition are set out in the Competition Code (Code de la concurrence) as well as the Consumer Code (Code de la consommation). Conduct relating solely to competition between traders is governed by the Competition Code, whereas conduct affecting consumers is regulated by the Consumer Code. As “greenwashing” advertising is directed at consumers, it therefore falls within the scope of application of the Consumer Code.
Notably, the French Consumer Code not only transposes the provisions of Directive 2005/29/EC and Directive (EU) 2019/2161, but also imposes more stringent requirements than those Directives. Specifically, Article L121-2(2)(e) of the Consumer Code[12] provides that commercial practices are deemed misleading to consumers where they are based on false or misleading claims, information, or presentations, or are likely to mislead (de nature à induire en erreur), relating to “the degree of commitment of the person making the claim, particularly in the environmental field”, with respect to a consumer who is duly informed and reasonably observant and circumspect (consommateur normalement informé et raisonnablement attentif et avisé)[13].
The provision concerning the “degree of commitment” was transposed from Article 6(1)(c) of Directive 2005/29/EC (trader’s commitments) before being replaced by Article 1(2)(a) of Directive (EU) 2024/825. However, none of the provisions of Directives 2005/29/EC and 2019/2161, as transposed by the EU Member States, specifically address misleading environmental information provided to consumers.
France has therefore gone beyond the EU legal framework by providing examples and guidance on false environmental commitments as early as 2021, that is, even before the adoption of Directive (EU) 2024/825.
The Case brought by Greenpeace, Les Amis de la Terre, and Notre Affaire à Tous against TotalEnergies for “greenwashing” advertising
In a recent dispute between the non-governmental organizations Greenpeace, Les Amis de la Terre, and Notre Affaire à Tous and TotalEnergies concerning the defendant’s advertising and commitments aimed at sustainable development, the Paris Court provided important interpretations of the provisions of the Consumer Code as well as the EU Directives. Accordingly, the Court examined two main legal issues: first, whether the challenged conduct fell within the scope of Directive 2005/29/EC, as transposed into Article L121-2 of the Consumer Code; and second, whether the challenged conduct constituted environmental commitments.
With regard to the scope of application, the Court concluded that certain challenged acts fell within the scope of Directive 2005/29/EC, as transposed into Article L121-2 of the Consumer Code,[14] on the basis of two key arguments.
First, the acts fell within the scope of Article L121-2 of the Consumer Code because they were of a commercial nature, namely intended to promote or sell products or services to customers. In other words, the publication of “greenwashing” commitments would not be characterized as a commercial practice if it were carried out on a non-commercial website and merely formed part of a communication campaign on TotalEnergies’ strategy and rebranding,[15] or if it served solely to provide information about a social event.[16] Certain commitments made by TotalEnergies were found by the Paris Court to violate competition law because they were published on commercial websites, accompanied by calls to use the company’s goods and services.[17]
Second, the advertising conduct contained misleading information within the meaning of Article L121-2 of the Consumer Code. Notably, information may still be misleading and infringe competition law even where its content is factually correct.[18] Specifically, the Court held that the use of the term “ambition” rather than “commitment” did not alter the misleading nature of the information, as both forms of expression conveyed to consumers the same understanding of the level of obligation and environmental commitment of the enterprise.[19]
With regard to the existence of environmental commitments, the Paris Court reasoned that although the commitments were primarily related to the objective of “carbon neutrality” - a concept enshrined in the Paris Agreement[20], which formally governs States only[21] - the global context of efforts to reduce emissions[22] and the potential contribution of enterprises to that common objective,[23] together with TotalEnergies’ statements made “in a collective spirit” (dans un esprit collectif)[24] or “together with society” (ensemble avec la société),[25] rendered the challenged conduct related to environmental commitments within the meaning of Article L121-2(2)(e).[26]
On that basis, the Court rendered a judgment concluding that TotalEnergies’ statements concerning its “ambition to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050” and being “a key player in the energy transition” were misleading to consumers and therefore violated the provisions on unfair competition.[27]
It can be seen that the judgment of the Paris Court provides valuable experience in interpreting advertising law provisions to identify and address “greenwashing” advertising. Accordingly, the average consumer is deemed not to be capable of clearly distinguishing the nuances between different levels of commitment. Consequently, enterprises cannot rely on having expressed a lower level of commitment in their advertising to demonstrate that the information provided is not misleading.
3.3. German Law
Similar to France, Germany does not have a separate legal instrument specifically regulating competitive conduct related to “green” or “sustainable” advertising. False or misleading statements or commitments concerning environmental friendliness that mislead consumers are addressed under the Act against Unfair Competition (Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb – UWG).
The German Act against Unfair Competition, adopted on 3 October 2010 and most recently amended on 6 May 2024, transposes Directive 2005/29/EC and related EU Directives into national law. Unlike France - which has opted to adopt provisions that are somewhat stricter than those set out in the EU Directives - the German Act against Unfair Competition remains at the level of compliance with EU requirements.
ThAccordingly, Article 5(1) UWG explains that unfairness (unlauter handelt) occurs where “a person engages in a misleading commercial practice that is capable of causing consumers or other market participants to take a transactional decision which they would not have taken otherwise”. This provision is transposed from Directive 2005/29/EC and retains the core elements of the EU rule. First, the conduct subject to sanction must constitute a commercial practice. Second, the conduct must create confusion or mislead consumers. However, whereas Directive 2005/29/EC expressly clarifies that the assessment standard is that of the “average consumer” and establishes that information may be misleading even if it is factually correct, the UWG does not specifically regulate these issues. Third, the affected party must be a consumer or another market participant who is not a trader. Fourth, the consequence of the misleading conduct is consumer detriment, namely the adoption of an inappropriate transactional decision.
In addition, Article 5(2)(6) UWG lists as one of the prohibited misleading practices the provision of false or misleading information relating to “a trader’s compliance with a code of conduct that is mandatory or to which the trader has voluntarily committed”. This provision is transposed from Article 6(1)(c) of Directive 2005/29/EC. However, despite the amendment of the UWG in May 2024, that is, after the adoption of Directive (EU) 2024/825, Germany did not update its legislation to incorporate the latest rules on misleading claims concerning environmental characteristics or environmental performance, which are intended to replace Article 6(1)(c). Although this cannot yet be regarded as a breach of the obligation to transpose, as EU Member States have until 27 March 2026 to complete transposition, Germany’s failure to proactively update its legislation partly demonstrates that the current legal framework in Germany remains insufficiently proactive in preventing “greenwashing” advertising.
The Federal Court of Justice of Germany initiates the trend of sanctioning "greenwashing" through judicial proceedings
If German legislators have so far chosen not to expressly address “greenwashing” advertising in statutory instruments, German courts have exercised their interpretative authority to deal with advertising practices that mislead consumers.
On 27 June 2024, in a dispute between the Centre for Protection against Unfair Competition (Wettbewerbszentrale) and a confectionery manufacturer concerning advertising claims that the defendant “produces all products in an environmentally neutral manner”, the Federal Court of Justice of Germany (Bundesgerichtshof – BGH) held that the term “environmentally neutral” (klimaneutral) may mislead consumers.[28] The BGH relied on Article 5(1) UWG to find that the challenged conduct was misleading to consumers,[29] while emphasizing that environmental advertising must be assessed against stricter standards.[30] According to the BGH’s reasoning, the term “environmentally neutral” may lead the average consumer[31] to understand that the production process involves actual reductions in CO₂ emissions, whereas in reality such “neutrality” may be achieved solely through carbon offsetting mechanisms.[32] Accordingly, manufacturers have an obligation to clarify in their advertising how the term “environmentally neutral” is to be understood.[33] However, the BGH did not rely on Article 5(2)(6) UWG, even though this provision could have been useful in demonstrating that the conduct was specifically prohibited by statutory law.
This BGH judgment has also paved the way for a series of similar disputes before regional courts. On 9 August 2024, the Hamburg Regional Court applied the BGH’s reasoning in a case that attracted significant media attention. Specifically, Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) - a non-governmental organization in Germany - brought an action against Tui Cruises GmbH, a cruise ship operator, for advertising claims that it would “operate cruise ships with zero carbon emissions by 2050”.[34] The Hamburg Regional Court found this statement to be misleading under Article 5(1) UWG. In particular, although the defendant listed specific emission reduction measures in its advertising, it failed to disclose transparently that the net-zero target would be achieved only through carbon offsetting mechanisms and that such offsetting measures would still need to be implemented even after 2050.[35] The Hamburg Regional Court emphasized that, in a context where environmental protection is increasingly becoming an urgent objective, the use of environmental-related terminology must be explained in a transparent and specific manner so as not to violate Article 5 UWG.[36]
Most recently, the Frankfurt Regional Court also admitted a claim against Apple and rendered a judgment finding that the company’s advertising of the Apple Watch as the “first CO₂-neutral product” was misleading to consumers.[37] Specifically, based on the understanding of the Paris Agreement, an ordinary consumer would understand that carbon offsetting would be ensured at least until 2050, whereas the majority of Apple’s forest-based offsetting projects are scheduled to end in 2029. By advertising “carbon neutrality” without providing specific information, Apple misled consumers.[38]
Whereas the French courts have engaged in detailed interpretation of EU and domestic legal instruments, German courts have not elaborated extensively on statutory provisions. This stems from the fact that German law does not contain specific rules governing “greenwashing” advertising. Despite the absence of a clear legal framework comparable to that of France, German courts have nevertheless succeeded in identifying and addressing “greenwashing” advertising and have articulated reasoning largely convergent with that of the French courts. In particular, German courts have interpreted Article 5(1) UWG broadly, on the assumption that consumers may be misled whenever environmental- or sustainability-related terms are not explained in a transparent and specific manner. Moreover, in order to prevent enterprises from exploiting legal loopholes in environmental advertising, German courts have emphasized that environmental advertising must be assessed against stricter standards than those applied in ordinary cases.
3.4. Observations on international experience in identifying "greenwashing" advertising
Although “greenwashing” is no longer a new form of advertising, the laws of many countries appear not to have kept pace with the need to establish a legal framework capable of identifying and sanctioning “greenwashing” advertising. However, the degree of readiness of national legal frameworks is not uniform. While France has opted for a legislative approach similar to that of the European Union, introducing provisions that explicitly refer to environmentally related advertising and thereby facilitating judicial interpretation, identification, and handling of “greenwashing” advertising, Germany has chosen a judicial approach in the absence of specific legal provisions governing environmentally related advertising. Despite adopting different approaches to building their legal frameworks, the courts of France and Germany both demonstrate creativity and effectiveness in interpreting legal instruments in order to address “greenwashing” advertising in a timely manner.
Based on experience from the European Union, France, and Germany, an advertisement or environmental claim is identified as violating competition law if it satisfies the following conditions. First, the advertisement or claim pursues a commercial purpose, namely the sale of products to consumers. Second, the advertisement provides information that may be misleading, such as environmental claims that are not transparent or cannot be verified. Notably, information may still be misleading even if it is factually correct, where consumers are not presumed to take into account differences in wording. The standard consistently applied for the purpose of assessing the likelihood of misleading consumers is that of the average consumer. Third, the misleading advertisement results in consumers making consumption decisions that they would not otherwise have made in the absence of such misleading information.
4. Policy implications for identifying "greenwashing" advertising in Viet Nam
Clause 12, Article 8 of the Law on Advertising 2012 prohibits advertising contents that constitute unfair competition in accordance with competition law. Point (a), Clause 5, Article 45 of the Law on Competition 2018 defines prohibited acts of unfair competition to include “improper customer solicitation” through “providing false or misleading information to customers about enterprises or goods, services, promotions, or transaction conditions relating to the goods or services supplied by the enterprise, for the purpose of attracting customers of other enterprises.”
When these provisions are compared with regulations on advertising and competition in France and Germany in particular, and in the European Union in general, Vietnamese law does address the prohibition of advertising that misleads customers about enterprises. However, the provisions of Vietnamese law remain vague and lack practical applicability with respect to “greenwashing” advertising.
First, although the Law on Competition introduces the concept of “misleading information about enterprises,” it does not provide a specific explanation of this concept. Pursuant to Clause 9, Article 8 of the Law on Advertising 2012, prohibited advertisements include those that mislead consumers about an enterprise’s “business capacity or capacity to supply products, goods, or services.” If understood in this manner, Point (a), Clause 5, Article 45 of the Law on Competition 2018 would not be suitable for identifying and handling “greenwashing” advertising. Conversely, a broader interpretation of “misleading information about enterprises,” which could also encompass misleading claims regarding commitments made by enterprises, currently lacks a clear legal basis and may give rise to inconsistencies between the Law on Competition and the Law on Advertising.
Second, the Law on Competition also imposes the condition of a purpose to “attract customers.” At present, the actual impact of green or sustainability commitments on consumer trends in Viet Nam remains insufficiently established. Consequently, even where “greenwashing” advertisements are identified as creating “misleading information about enterprises,” proving the element of a “purpose to attract customers” would pose significant difficulties for the competent authority, namely the National Competition Commission, in determining acts of unfair competition.
In order to address these limitations, in the short term, judicial bodies and the National Competition Commission should consider interpreting existing legal provisions in a more expansive manner, ensuring their contemporaneity and facilitating the timely identification and handling of “greenwashing” advertising. In the long term, legal normative documents in Viet Nam should be studied and amended or supplemented to keep pace with global trends.
4.1. Identifying "greenwashing" advertising in the handling of competition cases
Similar to Germany, Vietnamese law currently lacks specific provisions governing environmental commitments in advertising. In this context, judicial bodies and authorities competent to resolve competition cases play a crucial role in interpreting the law in order to promptly address “greenwashing” advertising. However, while German courts have proactively interpreted existing legal provisions to deal with misleading “greenwashing” advertisements, Viet Nam has not yet recorded any cases in which competent authorities have adopted creative interpretations of legal texts to identify “greenwashing” advertising. Accordingly, Viet Nam may draw on international experience to interpret the law and timely handle “greenwashing” advertisements that are increasingly prevalent in the market.
First, with regard to advertising that creates “misleading information about enterprises,” given that a broad interpretation encompassing misleading information about enterprises’ commitments risks creating inconsistencies between the Law on Competition and the Law on Advertising, competent authorities may consider interpreting the notion of “capacity to supply products, goods, or services” in a broader sense. This approach would allow for the handling of “greenwashing” advertising while avoiding conflicts between the two statutes. Specifically, the “capacity to supply products, goods, or services” may be understood not only in terms of quantitative capacity, but also in terms of qualitative capacity - namely, environmental protection capacity. In addition, the experience of France and Germany indicates that misleading information should be more readily established in the case of advertising relating to environmental commitments. According to German court practice, consumers are presumed to be liable to be misled whenever environmental concepts are not explained in a specific and transparent manner. Applied to the Vietnamese context, where enterprises place environmental protection claims, certifications, or other signs suggesting environmentally friendly production processes on product packaging or in any form of advertising for commercial purposes, such claims may be presumed to be misleading if they are not accompanied by clear, transparent, and easily visible explanations. Furthermore, judgments of French courts also suggest the possibility of presuming that the average consumer lacks the ability to clearly distinguish the nuances among different levels of commitment when advertising relates to sustainable development.
Second, with regard to the condition of “attracting customers,” this concept may be understood as referring to advertising of a commercial nature. Such an interpretation would render the relevant provisions of the Law on Competition less ambiguous, while at the same time facilitating the inclusion of “greenwashing” advertising within the scope of regulation under the Law on Competition.
Nevertheless, interpreting existing legal provisions in a broad manner constitutes only a temporary measure. It carries the risk of inconsistency and potential conflicts in legal interpretation. Therefore, in the long term, legal normative documents in the fields of advertising and competition should be studied with a view to amendment and supplementation in order to meet the practical need to identify and address “greenwashing” advertising in Viet Nam.
4.2.Amendment and supplementation of legal provisions on advertising and competition
4.2.1. Reconsidering the concept of "misleading information about enterprises"
With regard to the ambiguity of the concept of “misleading information about enterprises,” the provision in Point a, Clause 5, Article 45 of the Law on Competition 2018 may be adjusted in two directions.
PhThe first option is to clearly determine that misleading information is not limited to misunderstandings concerning “business capacity or the capacity to supply products, goods, or services,” but also encompasses misleading information regarding enterprises’ commitments and social contributions, particularly commitments and contributions to sustainable development. The advantage of this option is that it would not significantly disrupt existing legal provisions, as competent authorities would only need to study and supplement the interpretation of “misleading information about enterprises” in the Law on Competition. However, this option entails the risk of creating inconsistency between the Law on Competition (which would adopt a broader interpretation of “misleading information about enterprises”) and the Law on Advertising (which provides for a narrower interpretation of this concept).
The second option draws on legislative experience from the EU. As discussed above, Directive 2005/29/EC prohibits advertising that is misleading with respect to “trader’s commitments.” However, this concept has been replaced by “the main characteristics of the product, such as … environmental or social characteristics,” or by “environmental claims relating to future environmental performance without clear, objective, publicly available, and verifiable commitments” under Directive 2024/825. Similarly, Vietnamese law could replace the notion of “misleading information about enterprises” with a more specific concept, such as “misleading information regarding enterprises’ commitments and capacity for social contribution, particularly commitments and contributions to sustainable development.” The advantage of this option lies in the use of a different concept, thereby avoiding conflicts with the Law on Advertising.
Nevertheless, the drawback of this option is that it requires extensive research, comparative analysis, and assessment of legal provisions and practical experience in multiple countries, as well as consideration of amendments to related legal documents in order to ensure the consistency of the legal system.
4.2.2. Supplementing provisions on environment-related advertising
As analyzed above, regulations governing environment-related advertising are increasingly being tightened across many legal systems. While EU and French legislators have chosen to pursue this tightening through legislative instruments, Germany has adopted a judicial approach by interpreting existing provisions more strictly through court judgments. Nevertheless, with Directive 2024/825 required to be transposed into national law no later than March 2026, EU Member States will inevitably have to tighten regulations on environment-related advertising through legislative instruments.
Drawing on legislative experience and practical application in the EU in general, and in France and Germany in particular, Vietnamese law may consider supplementing more specific provisions aimed at enhancing the transparency of environment-related advertising. In particular, the law should require enterprises to publicly disclose and substantiate the basis of their “green” or “sustainable” claims; to provide clear explanations of the environmental terms used; and to specify the methods, scope, and timeframe for the implementation of their environmental commitments.
5. Conclusion
“Green” commitments and sustainable development are regarded as effective communication strategies capable of generating positive impacts on an enterprise’s sales. As a result, many enterprises have abused such strategies by making claims or commitments that are unfounded or cannot be substantiated. “Greenwashing” constitutes an act of unfair competition among enterprises and adversely affects consumer interests. However, Viet Nam has yet to establish a specific legal framework to control “greenwashing” advertising. On the basis of legislative experience and practical application in the EU, as well as specific cases in France and Germany, Viet Nam should consider further improving its legal provisions on advertising and competition in the direction of enhancing transparency, ensuring verifiability of information, and enabling the timely handling of misleading environment-related advertising.
REFERENCES
[1]
Directive 2005/29/EC of 11 May 2005 on unfair commercial practices directed at consumers.
[2]
Directive 2019/2161 of 27 November 2019 amending Directives 93/13/EEC, 98/6/EC, 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU as regards the better enforcement and modernization of EU consumer protection rules.
[3]
Directive 2024/825 of 28 February 2024 amending Directives 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU to empower consumers for the green transition through better protection against unfair practices and better information.
[4]
Tribunal judiciaire [ordinary court of
original jurisdiction] Paris, Oct. 23 2025, RG n° 22/02955.
[5]
Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Court of
Justice], June 27 2024, I ZR 98/23.
[6]
Landgericht [Regional court] Hamburg,
Aug. 09 2024, 315 O 9/24.
[7]
Landgericht [Regional court] Frankfurt,
Aug. 26 2025, 3-06 O 8/24.
[8]
French Consumer Code (Code de la
consommation).
[9]
French Law No. 2021-1104 of 22 August 2021 amending the Consumer Code.
[10]
French Competition Code (Code de la
concurrence).
[11]
German Act against Unfair Competition (Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb).
[12]
AGCM, Press release: Italian
Competition Authority: fine of 3.5 million euros on the companies Giorgio
Armani S.p.A. e G.A. Operations S.p.A. for unfair commercial practice, AGCM
(Aug. 01 2025), https://en.agcm.it/en/media/press-releases/2025/8/PS12793.
[13]
AGCM, Press release: Italian
Competition Authority: 1 million euros fine imposed on Shein for misleading and
omissive green claims, AGCM (Aug. 04 2025), https://en.agcm.it/en/media/press-releases/2025/8/PS12709.
[14]
German court orders Apple to throw out
carbon neutrality claims, ICLG (Aug. 27 2025), https://iclg.com/news/22990-german-court-orders-apple-to-throw-out-carbon-neutrality-claims.
[15]
Sebastião Vieira de Freitas Netto et
al., Concepts and forms of greenwashing: a systematic review, 32
Environmental Sciences Europe, 2 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-020-0300-3.
[16]
Mao Xu et al., Greenwashing and
market value of firms: An empirical study, 284 International Journal of
Production Economics, 2-3 (2025), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2025.109606.
[17] Unzulässige Werbung„CO2 neutrales Produkt“, ORDENTLICHE GERICHTSBARKEIT HESSEN (Aug. 26 2025), https://ordentliche-gerichtsbarkeit.hessen.de/presse/co2-neutrales-produkt
[*] Lecturer – Faculty of Law, Ho Chi Minh City Open University. Email: an.dmy@ou.edu.vn. Date of approval for publication: 31 December 2025.
[1] AGCM, Press release: Italian
Competition Authority: fine of 3.5 million euros on the companies Giorgio
Armani S.p.A. e G.A. Operations S.p.A. for unfair commercial practice, AGCM (Aug. 01 2025), https://en.agcm.it/en/media/press-releases/2025/8/PS12793.
[2] AGCM, Press
release: Italian
Competition Authority: 1 million euros fine imposed on Shein for misleading and
omissive green claims,
AGCM (Aug. 04 2025), https://en.agcm.it/en/media/press-releases/2025/8/PS12709.
[3] German court orders Apple to throw out carbon neutrality claims, ICLG (Aug. 27 2025), https://iclg.com/news/22990-german-court-orders-apple-to-throw-out-carbon-neutrality-claims.
[4] Tribunal judiciaire [ordinary court of original jurisdiction] Paris, Oct. 23
2025, RG n° 22/02955.
[5] Sebastião Vieira de Freitas Netto et al., Concepts and forms of greenwashing: a systematic review, 32
Environmental Sciences Europe, 2 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-020-0300-3.
[6] Mao Xu et al., Greenwashing and market value of firms: An empirical
study, 284 International Journal of Production Economics, 2-3 (2025), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2025.109606.
[7] This Directive must be transposed into national law no later than 12 June 2007 and applied in the EU Member States no later than 12 December 2007.
[8] This Directive must be transposed into national law no later than 28 November 2021 and applied in the EU Member States no later than 28 May 2022.
[9] This Directive must be transposed into national law no later than 27 March 2026 and applied in the EU Member States no later than 27 September 2026.
[10] Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2024/825 dated 28 February 2024 replaces Article 6(1)(c) of Directive 2005/29/EC. Previously, Article 6(1)(c) of Directive 2005/29/EC concerned “trader’s commitments”.
[11] Article 1(2)(b) of Directive 2024/825 dated 28 February 2024 adds Article 6(1)(d) to Directive 2005/29/EC.
[12] Effective from 25 August 2021 pursuant to Law No. 2021-1104 dated 22 August 2021 amending the Consumer Code.
[13] Article L121-1 of the Consumer Code.
[14] Tribunal judiciaire
de Paris, supra note 4, paras. 89, 97.
[15] Id., para. 71.
[16] Id., para. 80.
[17] Id., paras. 88, 92-93, 96.
[18] Article 6(1) of Directive 2005/29/EC.
[19] Tribunal judiciaire
de Paris, supra note 4, para. 104.
[20] Id., para. 109.
[21] Id., para. 112.
[22] Id., para. 113.
[23] Id., para. 118.
[24] Id., para. 120.
[25] Id., para. 131.
[26] Id., para. 135.
[27] Operative part (Dispositif), para. 1.
[28] Bundesgerichtshof [Federal
Court of Justice], June 27 2024, I ZR 98/23.
[29] Id., para. 10.
[30] Id., paras. 17, 21, 23-26.
[31] This concept is not used in the UWG; however, the BGH referred to the application of this standard when assessing the misleading nature of the advertisement. See para. 22.
[32] Bundesgerichtshof, supra
note 28, para. 28.
[33] Id., para. 29.
[34] Landgericht [Regional
court] Hamburg, Aug. 09 2024, 315 O 9/24.
[35] Id., pp. 9-10.
[36] Id., p. 11.
[37] Landgericht [Regional
court] Frankfurt, Aug. 26 2025, 3-06
O 8/24.
[38] Unzulässige Werbung „CO2 neutrales Produkt“, Ordentliche Gerichtsbarkeit Hessen (Aug. 26 2025), https://ordentliche-gerichtsbarkeit.hessen.de/presse/co2-neutrales-produkt.
