In a ruling dated 26 February 2025 (case no. 5 U 11/24), the Hanseatic Higher Regional Court of Hamburg confirmed the dismissal of the action brought by the Federal Association of Consumer Organisations against a Hamburg-based energy supplier.
Facts of the case
The defendant supplier advertised gas supply contracts on its website as “climate-neutral gas”. It explained that it would offset 100 per cent of all CO₂ emissions generated in two ways: firstly, by purchasing and retiring CO₂ reduction certificates and, secondly, by providing financial support for the “InfraVest Taiwan Wind Farms” and “Cururos Wind Farm Project” projects. The consumer advice centre considered this information to be inadequate because it did not indicate the extent to which the respective mechanism contributes to offsetting and subsequently pursued a claim for injunctive relief and compensation for costs. The Hamburg Regional Court had already dismissed the claim; the association’s appeal was directed against this.
Legal standards
The Higher Regional Court applied the unfair competition law standards of Sections 3, 5, 5a UWG. For the interpretation of the term “climate neutral”, it referred to the BGH judgement “Klimaneutral” (BGH, judgement of 27 June 2024 – I ZR 98/23, GRUR 2024, 1122), according to which the average consumer knows that climate neutrality is regularly achieved through avoidance and/or compensation, as well as to the judgement of the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt of 10 November 2022 (6 U 104/22, GRUR 2023, 177), which does not assume an obligation to fully disclose all accounting details.
Reasons for the decision
In the opinion of the Senate, there was no lack of material information within the meaning of Section 5a UWG because the defendant had expressly stated the total compensation of the emissions as 100 per cent. A further breakdown of the relationship between direct project funding and certificate trading was, according to the court with reference to the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt, generally not necessary. In the absence of a breach of law, the court consequently also rejected the claim for reimbursement of the warning costs.
The judgement of the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg is in line with a line of supreme court case law that requires transparency for environmental and sustainability claims, but sets limits on the level of detail required. The BGH does not consider it contrary to experience for consumers to be aware of the “avoidance compensation” mechanism; the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt specifies that a general statement of the extent of compensation (e.g. “100 % compensated”) is sufficient as long as it is not misleading. In this current framework, climate-neutral advertising can (still) remain permissible.
Practical advice
Companies may continue to advertise climate neutrality, at least if they clearly state that all emissions are fully and exclusively offset on the basis of compensation measures and name the instruments used – such as certificates and specific climate protection projects – at least in keywords. According to current case law, a detailed disclosure of the percentage share of individual compensation instruments is not required, provided that the core statement “100% CO₂ compensation” is correct and there is no misleading information. Consumers thus receive a comprehensible core statement, but have the opportunity to obtain further information – for example via project registers or certificate databases – via QR codes or links.
However, it should be noted that, as part of the EU Green Deal, advertising with climate neutrality that is only achieved by subsequently offsetting greenhouse gas emissions will be prohibited under the EmpCo Directive from 27 September 2026.
We would be happy to advise you on the current and upcoming legal situation in order to avoid making green claims.