In October 2025, a French court ruled against TotalEnergies SE, finding that the company had misled consumers regarding its climate commitments. The lawsuit was initiated by Greenpeace France, Friends of the Earth France, and Notre Affaire à Tous, supported by ClientEarth, alleging that the company’s marketing campaigns promoting its “carbon neutrality” and role in the energy transition were false and deceptive.
The court concluded that TotalEnergies failed to provide accurate and complete information about its operations, as it promoted a “green” image of investing in renewables while simultaneously expanding oil and gas projects in Iraq, Tanzania, Denmark, and Uganda. The company was ordered to withdraw the advertisements, publish the judgment on its website for 180 days, and pay a fine of €10,000 per day for non-compliance. This judgment is regarded as one of the first major victories against greenwashing in Europe and an important step toward linking consumer protection law with climate accountability.
EU-level research shows that environmental protection is of great importance to citizens and that consumers are increasingly willing to pay more for products aligned with circular economy principles. Consequently, corporate “green” claims can no longer be taken lightly. The TotalEnergies case demonstrates that sustainability claims are no longer a matter of reputation alone—they have become a matter of legal responsibility. When corporations advertise their products or operations as “green,” “carbon neutral,” or “sustainable,” while maintaining practices that significantly harm the environment, this constitutes an unfair commercial practice.
Greenwashing in Serbia and Examples from Practice
Serbia has also witnessed a growing phenomenon of greenwashing, or “eco-manipulation.” Common forms include labeling products as “eco” or “biodegradable,” even when they decompose into microplastics or require special industrial conditions for degradation that do not exist in Serbia’s waste management system. Some manufacturers emphasize that their packaging is “recyclable,” even though the country’s recycling infrastructure is inadequate, making such claims practically meaningless.
Another frequent example is the promotion of electric vehicles as “carbon neutral,” while the majority of Serbia’s electricity still comes from coal-fired power plants. Such claims, though technically correct in a narrow sense, are misleading in the broader environmental context, as they obscure the true ecological impact of production and energy use.
On an international level, multiple forms of greenwashing have been identified:
- Irrelevant claims – highlighting facts with no real impact on sustainability (e.g. “CFC-free” labels even though CFC gases are globally banned);
- Misleading symbols – use of green imagery, symbols, or slogans that falsely suggest environmental benefits;
- Exaggerated claims – overstating the scope of environmental actions, such as advertising “100% renewable energy” when only a portion is sourced renewably;
- Hidden trade-offs – concealing negative effects of “green” practices, e.g. reducing plastic packaging while increasing CO₂ emissions in production.
Notable cases include H&M, whose “Conscious” collection relied on vague sustainability criteria; Volkswagen, with its infamous “Dieselgate” scandal over false emissions data; and Nestlé Dairy, accused of exaggerating methane reduction efforts while maintaining high dependence on industrial agriculture. These examples illustrate how greenwashing spans a wide range—from advertising slogans to strategic corporate communications.
Serbian Legal Framework and the Need for Harmonization with EU Law
Serbia’s Consumer Protection Act already prohibits misleading commercial practices, though it does not explicitly recognize environmental claims as a separate category. Under Article 18, a commercial practice is considered misleading when it induces, or is likely to induce, a consumer to make an economic decision they would not otherwise make, by providing false or deceptive information or by creating an overall false impression—even when the information provided is technically correct. Article 19 extends this to omissions, prohibiting traders from withholding essential information or presenting it in an unclear, unintelligible, or ambiguous manner. These provisions may be relevant in cases where information about pollution or energy inefficiency is hidden or inadequately presented.
Article 20 provides examples of misleading practices, but “false green marketing” is not among them. Given the growing relevance of environmental claims in advertising, it is necessary to explicitly define and regulate such practices as misleading.
In the European Union, the fight against greenwashing has become a central part of consumer protection and sustainability policy. The Directive (EU) 2024/825 on Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition, amending the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (2005/29/EC), prohibits vague or unverified environmental claims such as “eco-friendly” or “carbon neutral,” unless supported by credible evidence. Claims based solely on carbon offsetting, without actual emission reductions in the production chain, are also banned. The forthcoming Green Claims Directive will further detail how companies may present sustainability claims, introducing mandatory third-party verification and transparent disclosure of environmental impact data.
Incorporating principles from Directive (EU) 2024/825 into Serbian law would allow domestic authorities to better regulate sustainability claims and introduce verification obligations. Strengthening cooperation between consumer protection authorities, inspection bodies, and environmental regulators is equally important to treat greenwashing as a systemic issue rather than an ethical lapse. Encouraging strategic litigation by NGOs and civil society—mirroring the ClientEarth initiative—could also enhance corporate accountability in Serbia.
The TotalEnergies judgment demonstrates that greenwashing is no longer merely a moral issue—it is a legal one. Companies can now be held liable for misrepresenting their environmental and climate commitments. This serves as a crucial reminder for Serbia: sustainability claims are legally relevant statements. By integrating EU standards, clearly defining environmental claims, and strengthening oversight and sanctions, Serbia can improve its consumer protection system and ensure that the “green transition” is genuinely green—rather than just painted that way.