Greenwashing Regulations and Safe Environmental Claims in 2025 | Practical Playbook for FTC Green Guides & SB 343
- Gasilov Group Editorial Team
- Sep 13
- 7 min read
Executive Summary
In 2025, environmental claims face the same scrutiny as financial disclosures. Regulators, investors, and plaintiff lawyers are challenging vague or overstated language, and enforcement is accelerating across industries. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has not finalized updates to the Green Guides, yet state rules such as California’s SB 343 already impose strict standards on recyclability. International regulators are equally active. The UK Competition and Markets Authority required major retailers to tighten green claims, Australia fined Vanguard Investments 12.9 million AUD, and New York’s attorney general sued JBS over net zero promises.
The message is consistent. Broad terms such as “eco friendly,” “sustainable,” or “carbon neutral” invite legal action unless tied to clear evidence. Digital copy is no safer than packaging. Every claim must be supported by a method, a date, and geographic precision.
To reduce risk, companies should flip their process by starting with the rule and then writing the claim. Practical steps include building a central claims register, converting risky phrases into measurable attributes, and preparing for conflicting state and international laws. Enforcement against Keurig, Lufthansa, and JBS shows that regulators do not distinguish between investor reports, product labels, or websites.
Leaders who treat sustainability language as regulated disclosure, supported by substantiation files, supplier data pipelines, and regular audits, will safeguard credibility and maintain consumer trust while staying ahead of global compliance shifts.
The new reality for environmental claims
In 2025, executives face a hard truth: every environmental claim is now read as closely as a financial disclosure. Regulators and plaintiff lawyers have shifted from broad guidance to detailed enforcement, and the line between marketing copy and regulated disclosure is disappearing.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has not finalized its long-awaited updates to the Green Guides. Packaging Dive reported in February that the agency had “nothing new to share” on revisions. Meanwhile, state-level rules are setting tougher substantiation bars for recyclability and compostability, directly reshaping packaging copy and product claims.
That uneven mix of federal guidelines, strict state requirements, and active enforcement means that sustainability claims must be treated with the same rigor as quarterly earnings.
Why scrutiny has escalated
The regulatory climate shifted for two reasons: rising consumer reliance on claims and increasing evidence of misleading practices. Authorities have made clear that aspirational or vague language is no longer acceptable.
United States: In September 2024, Keurig Dr Pepper paid a 1.5 million dollar penalty to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) over misleading statements that its K Cup pods were “effectively recycled.” The agency found those statements conflicted with recycler feedback and issued a cease-and-desist order.
United Kingdom: In March 2024, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) secured undertakings from ASOS, Boohoo, and George at Asda to tighten their green claims and disclose criteria more transparently.
Australia: In September 2024, the Federal Court ordered Vanguard Investments Australia to pay 12.9 million Australian dollars for misleading claims about exclusionary screens in an ethically conscious bond fund.
The lesson is consistent across markets: regulators do not distinguish between investor reports, product packaging, and website copy. If a statement is misleading, liability follows.
The rule-first approach
The most effective way to manage risk is to flip the traditional process. Instead of starting with creative copy and adding disclaimers later, begin with the rule and write from there.
The FTC’s Green Guides remain the baseline. For example, the agency makes clear that unqualified degradable claims require proof the entire item will completely break down within one year of customary disposal. That excludes items that go to landfills, incinerators, or most recycling facilities.
State rules then layer on additional specificity. California’s SB 343 sets a bright line for recyclability claims. CalRecycle’s final findings, published April 4, 2025, triggered an 18-month compliance clock, with the law applying to products manufactured after October 4, 2026.
A compliant process builds claims up from these rules, not around them.
High-risk phrases to avoid or qualify
The challenge is not to say less but to ensure every word has support. Regulators have flagged several categories of claims that often mislead:
1. General benefit claims
Words like “green,” “eco-friendly,” or “sustainable” without limits are treated as misleading. Always state the specific attribute—such as “30 percent post-consumer resin”—and provide a method note.
2. Recyclability
A recyclable claim must reflect actual collection and processing realities. Under SB 343, an item cannot be marketed as recyclable in California unless it meets statewide criteria. This creates conflicts with states that require the chasing arrows symbol, which marketers must navigate with precise qualifiers.
3. Compostability
If only industrial facilities can process an item, state that fact and indicate availability. The FTC requires qualifications when facilities are not accessible to a substantial majority of consumers.
4. Climate neutral and net zero
These phrases face particular scrutiny. In 2023, the National Advertising Review Board told JBS USA to discontinue its “net zero by 2040” claim for lack of substantiation, and the company agreed. In 2024, New York’s attorney general sued JBS for misleading climate claims.
The takeaway: unqualified carbon claims are magnets for challenge.
Why digital copy carries equal risk
Some executives assume website copy carries less risk than product packaging. That is not the case. Digital statements are public records, often cited in enforcement actions. Regulators treat them no differently than on-pack claims.
Two practices lower exposure:
Connect each claim to a method and a date. If a bottle contains recycled content, specify the percentage, the test method, and the scope.
Use geographic qualifiers. California’s treatment of chasing arrows differs from Oregon and Washington. For example, Oregon’s Recycling Modernization Act begins program changes in July 2025, supported by a Truth in Labeling Task Force. Washington’s 2021 plastics law removed the chasing arrows requirement for many rigid containers.
Digital content is simply a larger, faster-moving liability surface.
The takeaway so far
Greenwashing enforcement is no longer about extreme cases. Regulators now target common marketing language, and global cases from Keurig to JBS to Vanguard show that liability spans industries and geographies.
If your team needs a secure claims register, a quick scrub of priority pages, or a full substantiation library, contact us. We can pressure test your highest-risk claims, build a practical rules map by state and region, and set up controls that keep your copy accurate at scale.
Building claims that pass scrutiny
The fastest way to reduce risk is to formalize the process. Start with a claims register that maps every sustainability phrase, whether on packaging, in product descriptions, or on a corporate website, to a specific legal basis, method, and data owner. Each entry should point to a substantiation file that contains test reports, life cycle boundaries, material composition, and any geographic restrictions.
For degradable and compostable claims, begin with FTC guidance. The agency requires proof that the entire item will break down within a year of customary disposal. Products that end up in landfills, incinerators, or most recycling facilities typically do not meet this standard.
Recyclability deserves its own workstream. California’s SB 343 sets a new benchmark for on-pack claims. Its final findings, released on April 4, 2025, launched an 18-month compliance period. From October 4, 2026, products manufactured for the California market must meet these standards.
What enforcement teaches
Enforcement cases reveal how regulators frame liability. The SEC’s action against Keurig Dr Pepper in 2024 shows that inaccurate recyclability claims can be treated as securities law violations, not just consumer protection issues. The company failed to disclose negative feedback from major recyclers, highlighting how operational realities can trigger exposure across multiple legal regimes.
Advertising watchdogs have been equally active. The National Advertising Review Board told JBS USA in 2023 to drop its “net zero by 2040” language for lack of substantiation. New York’s attorney general escalated the issue by suing the company in 2024 for misleading climate claims. In the UK, the Advertising Standards Authority ruled against Lufthansa in 2023 for suggesting its flights were protecting the planet.
Practical steps for teams
Strong governance prevents rework and enforcement. Three moves make the difference:
Centralize ownership through a claims register. Treat sustainability copy like financial disclosures. Require cross-functional approval (legal, sustainability, and regulatory) before publishing any new claim.
Translate broad phrases into measurable attributes. Replace “eco-friendly” with “30 percent post-consumer resin, verified by ASTM test.” Specificity reduces risk and increases credibility.
Adapt for conflicting rules. A global baseline plus state-specific variants can address conflicts between federal Green Guides, California SB 343, and extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws in Oregon and Colorado. A lightweight claims council meeting monthly can keep language aligned
From copy to capability
The companies that avoid enforcement do more than fix copy. They build repeatable capability:
Inventory high-risk phrases and specify the evidence required before use.
Create supplier data pipelines that flow directly into content systems, preventing outdated numbers from persisting on websites or labels.
Audit labels and sites periodically, with special focus on California SB 343 deadlines and Oregon’s upcoming program changes.
By 2025, environmental claims are no longer soft marketing language. They are disclosures with legal weight. Cases from Keurig to Vanguard to JBS show that regulators are willing to pursue penalties across industries and markets. The most resilient companies are those that treat sustainability language as regulated copy, backed by clear rules, robust substantiation, and agile governance.
If your team needs help, our group can set up a claims register, establish a substantiation library, and design a triage plan for high-risk products and pages in a matter of weeks. Get in touch with us today.
Written by: Gasilov Group Editorial Team
Reviewed by: Seyfi Gasilov, Partner – Corporate Strategy & Legal Compliance
Frequently Asked Questions
What counts as adequate proof for a degradable claim under the FTC Green Guides?
Adequate proof requires scientific evidence that the entire product will break down within one year of customary disposal. Items ending up in landfills, incinerators, or most recycling facilities usually fail this standard, so marketers should be cautious when using the term.
How should brands handle recyclability claims that are valid in some states but not in California?
Use clear geographic qualifiers and align with California SB 343, which sets stricter standards. CalRecycle’s April 2025 findings triggered an 18-month clock, and the rules apply to products manufactured after October 2026, so companies should prepare now.
Are carbon neutral product labels still defensible in the United States?
Courts continue to scrutinize these claims. A 2024 decision in New York allowed a case on carbon neutral labeling to move forward, then narrowed its scope, but regulators still examine how consumers interpret such phrases. Brands should specify the basis for neutrality and avoid unqualified statements.
What recent enforcement cases affect packaging and consumer brands?
The SEC fined Keurig Dr Pepper 1.5 million dollars in 2024 for inaccurate recyclability claims. In Europe, the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority ruled against Lufthansa for implying its flights were protecting the planet. Both cases underscore how regulators target broad or misleading environmental claims.
Do extended producer responsibility (EPR) programs change what companies can say on labels?
Yes. EPR programs reshape both data requirements and labeling expectations. Oregon’s Recycling Modernization Act begins changes in July 2025, and Colorado’s program adds reporting and participation milestones. Companies should review state guidance before finalizing claims.