Wednesday, 30 March 2022

When green wash won’t wash: Avoiding misleading environmental claims

Introduction[1]

Businesses are increasingly keen to present an environmentally friendly or "green" image to their customers. Both large and small businesses realise that it makes good business sense to offer environmentally conscious consumers the option of a green product or service. Customers are often willing to pay a significant price premium for a green product.

Unfortunately, many businesses, including large businesses, have made fundamental mistakes in their green marketing. Instead of getting positive publicity for offering a green alternative, these companies have received negative publicity for their “green wash”. In some cases, these companies have had to grapple with unwanted attention from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). This risk has been significantly heightened with the ACCC’s announcement that it has included environmental claims and sustainability as a key priority in its 2022 Enforcement and Compliance Priorities.[2]

This article explores some of the green marketing mistakes that businesses have made in trying to sell their green credentials and proposes some guidelines that businesses can use to avoid these kinds of mistakes.

Relevant law

The Australian Consumer Law 2010 (ACL) contains four civil provisions are often used to attack false or misleading green claims - namely sections 18, 29(1)(a), 29(1)(g) and 33. 

Section 18 Misleading or deceptive conduct

(1)   A person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.

Section 29 False or misleading representations about goods or services

(1)   A person must not, in trade or commerce, in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or services or in connection with the promotion by any means or the supply or use of goods of services:

 

(a)   Make a false or misleading representation that goods are of a particular standard, quality, value, grade, composition, style or model or have had a particular history or particular use;

…

 (g)   make a false or misleading representation that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits…

 

Section 33 Misleading conduct as to the nature, etc of goods

 

A person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is liable to mislead the public as to the nature, the manufacturing process, the characteristics, the suitability for their purpose or the quantity of any goods.

These provisions are mirrored under state fair trading legislation.

The remedies available for a contravention of section 18 include injunctions, declarations, damages, corrective advertising and non-punitive orders. There are no civil pecuniary penalties for a contravention of section 18.

However there are significant civil pecuniary penalties for contraventions of sections 29 and 33 – namely the highest of either $10 million, three times the benefit arising from the contravening conduct or where that cannot be calculated, 10% of annual turnover.

One important aspect of the civil liability regime under the ACL is in relation to future representations. Section 4 of the ACL shifts the evidentiary burden onto the person making a future representation to show they had reasonable grounds at the time they made the representation. Therefore, if a business makes a representation about the future environmental benefits of their product, it may bear the onus of demonstrating that it had reasonable basis for making such representations.

Getting caught out

There are many groups monitoring the green claims made by business and there is a high likelihood of getting caught out if you make false green claims.

First, the ACCC has recently made green claims an enforcement priority.  As stated by Rod Sims in his speech announcing the 2022 Enforcement and Compliance Priorities:[3]

 

Many consumers are increasingly considering the environmental impact of the products and services they buy. We are hearing growing concerns that some businesses are falsely promoting environmental or green credentials to capitalise on these consumer preferences.

 

‘Greenwashing’ is a concern for both consumers and businesses. Consumers are often unable to determine the veracity of a product’s green credentials, reducing their confidence in the market. And businesses incurring the costs of genuine environmentally friendly manufacturing processes face unfair competition from those businesses making misleading green claims without incurring the same costs.

The ACCC’s focus on environmental claims and sustainability won’t be limited to consumer goods.

 

We will also be looking at claims made in the manufacturing and energy sectors; we are hearing about some business seeking to gain an advantage by making misleading claims about the carbon neutrality of their production processes.

 

Many of these businesses operate within a range of regulatory frameworks requiring accounting of offsets, reporting and disclosure. The ACCC will be working closely with other regulators, in particular ASIC and the Clean Energy Regulator, to identify which of us is appropriate to deal with issues. Where businesses have engaged in false, misleading or deceptive conduct we will act. 

As is apparent, the ACCC sees this as a critical issue for both consumers and for competition. Consumers obviously value green products and sustainable manufacturing processes, but it is also important for markets that companies which are investing in “greener” technologies do not lose sales to other companies which are making false or misleading claims.

More recently the new chair of the ACCC, Gina Cass-Gottlieb has echoed Rod Sims’ comments:

 

“But, also, when businesses that are genuinely investing in recyclable structures, renewable energy and expending the costs for it, if there is a competitor falsely claiming that it is, you also have unfair competition outcomes.”[4]

The ACCC has also signalled a particular interest in those selling or claiming sham carbon offsets. These comments appear to be a response to recent findings of the Domestic Offsets Oversight Body which said that up to 80% of carbon credits issued by the Clean Energy Regulator were flawed.

Second, there are a large number of vigilant and sophisticated non-government organisations constantly on the lookout for green claims that are misleading. For example, a complaint by the Total Environment Centre prompted the ACCC to investigate EnergyAustralia (discussed below). These organisations can also initiate their own private actions for breaches of the relevant civil provisions of the ACL.

The final major risk is posed by competing businesses. Competitors will be very keen to complain to the ACCC about a green claim which does not stack up.

ACCC enforcement

The ACCC was particularly active in relation to environmental claims back in 2008 to 2010 but since that time enforcement activity has dropped off. The ACCC has also had a number of high profile defeats in environmental cases in the last few years, which will be discussed below.

Air conditioning

The first notable series of environmental investigations taken by the ACCC were in 2003 and related to claims made by the Australian air-conditioning industry that its products were “environmentally friendly”. The first case was taken against Sanyo Airconditioning Manufacturing Singapore Pte Ltd, which claimed that its Eco Multi Series air conditioners had "environmentally-friendly HFC 'R407C' Added" and were "for a new ozone era - keeping the world green".[5]

A problem with this representation is that R407C is a potent greenhouse gas and as such is hardly “environmentally friendly”. Another gas used in the Eco Multi Series was R22, an ozone depleting hydrochlorofluorocarbon, which was clearly not beneficial to the ozone layer.

Two important issues arise from this case (which was settled by consent). First, the ACCC took the view that “environmentally friendly” is a representation that a product will have a neutral effect, as opposed to a beneficial effect, on the environment. Therefore a product that does not harm the environment could arguably be described as environmentally friendly. Second, the ACCC took action against Sanyo Airconditioning for both the text used in its marketing materials as well as the images of trees, the sea and the moon. The ACCC formed the view that such images conveyed a strong environmental message to consumers.

Following this case, there were two further notable investigations into Daikin[6] and Dimplex[7] for making similar representations. In each of these cases the companies entered into s.87B undertakings to cease making the green representations and to carry out a range of remedies, including publishing corrective notices on their websites and industry magazines and writing corrective letters to customers and distributors.

Motor vehicles

Another area of ACCC activity relates to green representations made in relation to motor vehicles.

In 2008, the Federal Court declared by consent that representations made by GM Holden Ltd about the environmental benefits of Saab motor vehicles were misleading.[8] In particular, GMH made the claim that “Every Saab is green. With carbon emissions neutral across the entire Saab range”. The basis for this claim was that GMH would plant 17 native trees per vehicle to offset the emissions generated during the life of each motor vehicle. In actual fact, the 17 trees would have only offset the carbon emissions for one year of each motor vehicle’s operation.

GMH was ordered to refrain from making such representations in the future and to re-train its marketing staff. However, the largest cost to GMH (apart from the damage to its credibility as a seller of “green” products) was its obligation to plant an additional 12,500 trees to offset the carbon emissions from the motor vehicles which it did sell during the Saab "Grrrrrreen" advertising campaign.

Also in 2008, the ACCC took action against green representations made by V8 Supercars as part of its ‘Racing Green Program’.[9] V8 Supercars claimed that planting 10,000 native trees would offset the carbon emissions from the V8 Championship Series as well as all associated transport emissions of the racing teams travelling to events. The ACCC was concerned that consumers would understand that the 10,000 trees would absorb the carbon emissions in a short period of time, when in actual fact the emissions from one year of racing would only be absorbed by these trees over several decades.

The third case taken by the ACCC in 2008 involved representations made by Goodyear about its Eagle LS2000 range of tyres.[10] Goodyear said that this tyre range was environmentally friendly, designed for minimal environmental impact, and that its production processes resulted in reduced carbon dioxide emissions. Goodyear settled this matter with the ACCC by providing a s.87B undertaking in which it admitted that these environmental benefits could not be substantiated.

However the most significant case is the action against Volkswagen Aktiengesellscha (VWAG) and its Australian subsidiary, Volkswagen Group Australia Pty Ltd (VGA), alleging they engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct, made false or misleading representations and engaged in conduct liable to mislead the public in relation to diesel vehicle emission claims.[11]

The ACCC alleged that between 2011 and 2015:

·         VWAG engaged in misleading conduct by installing and not disclosing the existence and operation of ‘defeat’ software, which controlled the operation of the vehicles’ exhaust gas recirculation system. The software caused the vehicles to produce lower nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions when subject to test conditions in a laboratory, but switched to a different mode under normal on-road driving conditions resulting in significantly higher NOx emissions being produced by the vehicles. 

·         Both VGA and VWAG engaged in misleading conduct by representing that the vehicles complied with Australian and European standards and all Australian regulatory requirements when, because of the defeat software, that was not the case.

·         Using information provided by VWAG, VGA marketed the vehicles in Australia as being environmentally friendly, clean burning, low emission and compliant with stringent European standards when this was not the case under normal driving conditions.  

The ACCC initially agreed on a settlement with Volkswagen whereby they would pay a total civil pecuniary penalty of $75 million.  However Justice Foster rejected this proposed settlement amount and ordered a total penalty of $125 million.

As stated by Foster J at para. 273

Taking all of the above matters into account, I have come to the view that the $75 million agreed penalty is not sufficient to meet the overriding objects of specific deterrence and general deterrence required in matters such as this and is manifestly inadequate. In saying that, I have in mind, in particular, the egregious nature of the consumer fraud perpetrated by VWAG, the calculated nature of that fraud, the fact that it was perpetrated by senior management personnel, the fact that it involved a very serious deception of Australian government regulatory authorities, the circumstance that its impact on consumers was very significant, the fact that excessive emissions of NOx are harmful to humans and to the environment, the fact that it has shown no contrition, the fact that the agreed penalty is not supported by any reasoning (especially by the ACCC) or any justification other than it was arrived at as a compromise as part of an overall settlement, the fact that the potential maximum penalties (subject to the application of the course of conduct principle and the totality principle) is at least $520 million and possibly much more, the fact that VWAG has conducted the litigation by taking every point possibly available to it and the fact that it has only adopted a different stance under the pressure of the imminent commencement of the Stage 2 Hearing. VWAG is more than capable of paying a much larger penalty, given its size and wealth, and has, of course, done exactly that in the US and in Europe.

An appeal to the Full Federal Court by Volkswagen was unsuccessful,[12] with the Court affirming Justice Foster’s decision. Special leave to appeal to the High Court was refused.

Biodegradable / compostable

In 2008, the ACCC took legal action against SeNevens International Ltd and its director, Ms Charishma Seneviratne, for misleading representations that its Safeties Nature Nappy product was '100% biodegradable'.[13]  The court held that the biodegradability claims were false and misleading because SeNevens's Safeties Nature Nappy product contained plastic components that were not capable of being broken down by the biological activity of living organisms.

In 2010, the ACCC took legal action against Goody Environment Pty Ltd and Nupak Australia Pty Ltd alleging that 'Goody' brand plastic bags were biodegradable and compostable in accordance with the relevant Australian Standard and could be legally supplied in South Australia, when this was not correct.[14]  The court held that the bags were not biodegradable and compostable because they:

·         contained a heavy metal in amounts that exceeded the maximum concentration prescribed by the Australian Standard, and

·         did not biodegrade, disintegrate, or compost in accordance with the criteria prescribed by the Australian Standard.

In 2018, the ACCC took legal proceedings against Woolworths Ltd alleging that the environmental representations it made about its ‘W Select eco’ picnic products were false, misleading or deceptive, in contravention of the ACL.15]  The ACCC alleged that Woolworths had represented to consumers that these products would biodegrade and compost within a reasonable period of time when disposed of in domestic compost bins or conventional landfill sites in Australia.

Justice Mortimer of the Federal Court dismissed the ACCC case, finding that as the compostable representation was capable of being true or false at the time the representation was made then it was not a future representation. Therefore as the relevant products had the capacity to be compostable at the time they were sold, the representations were not future representations and as such were not false or misleading.[16]

As stated by the Court:


201. I accept Woolworths’ submissions that there are a number of other adjectival descriptions of products which fall into the same category, such as “poisonous”, “flammable”, “non-toxic” or “washable”. All of these are adjectival descriptions because they are describing the characteristics of a product, derived from its ingredients. All deal with a present state of affairs, that is either true or false, and which can be tested or ascertained as a matter of fact. The fact that the testing or proof of the capacity of the product is something that will happen in the future – when the product is used or disposed of – does not alter the nature of the representation. Rather, that is how the present representation about the features of a product is fulfilled (or not fulfilled, as the case may be).

 

202. The ACCC seeks to distinguish some of these adjectival descriptions from the phrase in issue by submitting that descriptions such as “flammable” or “washable” concern an “immediately demonstrable fact”. However, that is simply to distinguish between the length of time taken by a process before a product’s features become apparent or are fulfilled. The description “flammable” may refer to an “immediate” outcome, or one that occurs rather more slowly. The same is true of a phrase such as “poisonous”: the effects of the poison may take some time to manifest themselves, or they may not. A description such as “carcinogenic” is another example of an adjectival description of a product where the features or characteristics of the product to which the description relates may take quite some time to manifest themselves. It is nevertheless still a description of present fact, capable of being tested and proven to be true or false.

Mortimer J’s decision on this issue was upheld on appeal by the Full Federal Court.[17]

Flushable

In 2016, the ACCC commenced legal proceedings against Kimberly-Clark Australia Pty Ltd (Kimberly-Clark) and separately against Pental Limited and Pental Products Pty Ltd (Pental) in relation to flushable wipes.[18] The ACCC was concerned that by labelling these products as “flushable”, consumers were being led to believe that the products had similar characteristics to toilet paper, would break up or disintegrate in a timeframe and manner similar to toilet paper, and were suitable to be flushed down the toilet, when this was not the case.

Separately the ACCC raised similar concerns with ALDI Supermarkets who agreed in 2017 to withdraw its flushable wipes products from its Special Buys promotion.[19]

In 2018, Pental settled legal proceedings taken by the ACCC. As part of the settlement Pental admitted that it had represented its White King ‘flushable’ wipes were made from a

specially designed material which disintegrated in the sewerage system like toilet paper, had similar characteristics to toilet paper when flushed, and were suitable to be flushed into the sewerage system when that was not the case.[20] Pental also agreed to pay a pecuniary penalty of $700,000.

Kimberly-Clarke decided to contest the ACCC’s allegations.  In 2019, Justice Gleeson of the Federal Court held that there was insufficient evidence to show that Kleenex Cottonelle ‘flushable’ wipes, as opposed to ‘wipes’ products more broadly, had contributed to the problems in municipal sewerage systems.[21] In other words, the ACCC had been unable to prove that it was Kleenex Cottonelle ‘flushable’ wipes specifically that were not passing through the sewerage system.  The ACCC’s appeal to the Full Federal Court was dismissed.


Other matters

EnergyAustralia

In 2007, the ACCC also looked at green claims made by energy companies. It investigated EnergyAustralia’s representations about its CleanAir and GreenFuture non-accredited electricity products.[22] EnergyAustralia claimed that consumers who signed up would get “100% green electricity at no extra cost” and that “for every kilowatt hour of electricity you buy, the same amount of electricity will be generated from 100% renewable sources, and that’s guaranteed”.

The ACCC was concerned that consumers would conclude that they were supporting new sources of renewable energy rather than simply offsetting their coal fired electricity against existing sources. While EnergyAustralia did not admit that its representations were misleading, it did acknowledge that customers may have been confused by the representations.

EnergyAustralia agreed to a range of remedies including compensation, corrective letters to customers and a contribution of $100,000 to an educational brochure to explain the difference between accredited and non-accredited products.

Global Green

In 2010, the ACCC obtained a court enforceable undertaking from Global Green Plan Ltd (Global Green)[23. Global Green operated GreenSwitch, a retailer of GreenPower under the government's national GreenPower accreditation program, through which it accepted payments from  customers for the purchase of renewable energy.  Despite being officially deregistered from the GreenPower Program in 2008, Global Green continued to accept payment from customers via the GreenSwitch website for two months. Global Green agreed to purchase more than 4000 renewable energy certificates to make up for the shortfall.  When Global Green did not comply with their undertaking, the ACCC was forced to commence legal proceedings to enforce compliance.[24]

Momentum Energy

In 2018, Momentum Energy Pty Ltd (Momentum) paid penalties totalling $54,000 following the issue of five infringement notices for falsely representing that it offered a 100% renewable energy product.[25] Momentum made representations through an extensive advertising campaign, which included television, print, radio, social media and its website that all its energy was generated from renewable sources. For example “Powered by Hydro Tasmania, all our electricity is 100% Renewable”. However as Momentum supplied its customers through the National Electricity Market (NEM), it was not possible to claim that its electricity came from one particular source

Lessons

The main lessons to come out of this review of ACCC investigations and litigation are as follows:


  • don’t make a green representation unless you has the scientific evidence to back up the claim 
  • be careful how you use images in green marketing material as the ACCC will be looking carefully at any images used, and not just the text 
  • don’t overstate the environmental benefits of a green initiative 
  • make sure green representations are not confusing for consumers to understand and 
  • recognise that some environmental benefits are too complex to translate into a short sharp marketing message. 

Resources

There are two key resources in the area of green marketing claims:

 

  • ACCC Green marketing and the Australian  Consumer Law[26] and

 

  • ISO 14021:2016 - Environmental labels and declarations – Self-declared environmental claims.[27]

Green marketing and the Australian Consumer Law

This guide was released by the ACCC in 2008 and re-issued in 2011. Unfortunately, the publication appears to be out of date, referring still to the lower civil pecuniary penalties under the ACL.

The guide explains the specific sections of the ACL that may apply to green marketing claims.

In section 2 the guide sets out a range of principles that businesses should consider prior to making environmental claims:

• be honest and truthful

• detail the specific part of the product or process it is referring to

• use language which the average member of the public can understand

• explain the significance of the benefit

• be able to be substantiated.

One important principle is that when a business makes a green claim it should consider the whole life cycle of the product. Even if a product is not environmentally detrimental during its useful life, if it has significant environmental impacts when discarded, a business should avoid making broad unqualified environmental claims about it.

In section 4 there is a useful “Checklist for marketers”.

 

When making environmental claims on your products or in your advertising, you should check the following:

·         Avoid using terms like ‘safe’ and ‘friendly’ and unqualified pictures or graphics. At best they are unhelpful and encourage scepticism; at worst they are misleading.

·         Spell out exactly what is beneficial about a product in plain language that consumers can understand.

·         Link the environmental benefit to a specific part of the product or its production process, such as extraction, transportation, manufacture, use, packaging or disposal.

·         Make sure any claims you make about your product can be substantiated. Think about how you would answer a query regarding the environmental benefits you are claiming about your product. For example, what scientific authority could you use to justify the basis of your claim?

·         Explain how a product’s characteristic is beneficial to the environment. For example, explain that a phosphate-free product is less damaging in river systems because phosphate promotes algal growth, which can clog up rivers.

·         Avoid giving the impression that your product is completely environmentally benign if it is not.

·         Use the claim only in an appropriate context or setting. For example, do not claim that a product is not tested on animals if it is a product that would never be tested on animals anyway.

ISO 14021:2016 -  Environmental labels and declarations – Self-declared environmental claims

The Australian and New Zealand Standard has been in existence since 2000. However, in 2016 it was replaced by an international standard ISO 14021:2016 and revised in 2021. While it is still not a mandatory standard, given the interest in green marketing claims in the community, it is only a matter of time before a mandatory standard is introduced. Accordingly, it is worthwhile to consider the main aspects of this standard as it provides some good insights about how to ensure that green marketing claims are not misleading or deceptive.

The objective of this standard is described as “to harmonize the various national guidelines on environmental claims used in product labels and in marketing generally, in order to facilitate trade in the global marketplace and to give consumers confidence in environmental claims”.

The object of giving consumers confidence in environmental claims is particularly important in the green marketing area. Consumers do not have the time to fully research the scientific evidence which bears on a green claim. Accordingly, consumers are more reliant on the accuracy of the green marketing material when making their purchasing decision.

The specific objects of the standard include:

 

a.  Accurate, verifiable, and not misleading

b.  Increased potential for market forces to stimulate environmental improvements in]

      production, process and products

c.  Prevention or minimization of unwarranted claims

d.  Reduction in marketplace confusion

e.  Facilitation of international trade

f.   Increased opportunity for making more informed choices.

Clause 5.3 states:

 

The use of vague and non-specific claims or those that make broad implications such as “environmentally safe,” “environmentally friendly”, "green", "natures’ friend", “ozone friendly”, etc, shall not be used because they are misleading. The intention of these claims is to represent that a product or service offers general environmental benefits without any qualifications. The truth is however, that no product or service can offer such an unqualified environmental benefit. No matter how small it may be, all products and services exert adverse impacts on the environment throughout their life cycle.

Clause 5.4 states that claims that a product is “free” of an environmentally damaging substance should generally not be used. The reason being that such claims cannot generally be demonstrated to be literally true owing to the presence of trace contaminants.

Clause 5.5 prohibits the making of sustainability claims as there are no definitive methods of “measuring sustainability or measuring its accomplishment”.

Clause 5.7 provides a checklist of specific requirements that every environmental claim should meet in order to satisfy the standard:

  • Be accurate and not misleading
  • Be substantiated and verified
  • Be relevant to that particular product
  • Be presented in a manner that clearly indicates whether the claim applies to the complete product, or only to a product component, or packaging
  • Be specific as to the environmental aspect or environmental improvement which is claimed
  • Not be restated using different terminology to imply multiple benefits for a single environmental change.
  • Be unlikely to result in misinterpretation.
  • Be true not only in relation to the final product, but also consider all relevant aspects of the product life cycle (life cycle consideration)
  • Be presented in a manner which does not imply that the product is endorsed or certified by an independent third party organization when it is not.
  •  Not, either directly or by implication, suggests an environmental improvement which does not exist, nor shall it exaggerate the environmental aspect of the product to which the claim relates.
  • Not be made if, despite the claim being literally true, it is likely to be misinterpreted by purchasers or is misleading through the omission of relevant facts.
  • Only relate to an environmental aspect that either exists or is likely to be realized during the life of the product.
  • Be presented in a manner that clearly indicates that the environmental claim and explanatory statement should be read together
  • If a comparative assertion of environmental superiority or improvement is made, be specific and make clear the basis for the comparison; be relevant in terms of how recently any improvement was made.
  • If based on a pre-existing but previously undisclosed aspect, be presented in a manner that does not lead purchasers, to believe that the claim is based on a recent modification.
  • Not be made where they are based on the absence of ingredients or features which have never been associated with the product category.
  • Be reassessed and updated as necessary to reflect changes in technology, competitive products or other circumstances that could alter the accuracy of the claim.
  • Be relevant to the area where the corresponding environmental impact occurs.


Conclusion

Green marketing claims are becoming an increasingly important area for businesses. Businesses risk breaching the ACL if they make sloppy, vague or unresearched green representations. Businesses have to be particularly on guard, now that the ACCC has included environmental and sustainability claims on its list of 2022 Enforcement and Compliance Priorities.  The ACCC’s record shows that once an issue has been included in its annual priority list, it will be very vigorous in seeking out appropriate cases and very aggressive in terms of the outcomes it seeks to achieve from the cases it takes.

However, if businesses carefully consider the key resources identified in this article, namely the green marketing guide issued by the ACCC and the international standard on self-declared environmental claims, they will minimise their risks.

Businesses should recognise that one implication of following these guides is that sometimes a proposed environmental claim will simply be too qualified or complex to be used in any marketing campaign. It is much better to abandon the use of such a claim at an early stage than to be the subject of an ACCC investigation, with the resultant negative publicity, if your oversimplified or otherwise misleading green claim is caught short.

[1] This article first appeared in the Law Society Journal (November 2008), Vol 46, No 10, pp. 50-54.  A revised version appeared in Impact! A National Journal of Environmental Law – Consumer Protection edition- Environmental Defender's Office in January 2010.  I have also presented this paper on two occasions once at a Young Lawyers Seminar in 2009 and also at the Environmental Defenders Office 25th National Conference in 2010.

[3] Ibid.

[4] ‘Sham’ carbon credits, banks in ACCC’s sights, Max Mason and Hannah Wootton, 26 March 2022, Australian Financial Review at https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/sham-carbon-credits-banks-in-accc-s-sights-20220324-p5a7kp

[5] ACCC institutes court action against Sanyo Airconditioners Manufacturing Singapore Pte Ltd – see https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-institutes-court-action-against-sanyo-airconditioners-manufacturing-sinapore-pty

[6] Warning to air conditioning industry after Daikin ‘green claims” challenged by ACCC – see https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/warning-to-air-conditioning-industry-after-daikin-green-claims-challenged-by-accc

[7] Dimplex chills out on “environmentally friendly” claims - see https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/dimplex-chills-out-on-environmentally-friendly-claims

[8] Saab “Grrrrrreen” claims declared misleading by Federal Court – see https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/saab-grrrrrreen-claims-declared-misleading-by-federal-court; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v GM Holden Ltd (ACN 006 893 232) [2008] FCA 1428 at http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCA/2008/1428.html

[10] Goodyear Tyres apologises, offers compensation for unsubstantiated environmental claims - see https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/goodyear-tyres-apologises-offers-compensation-for-unsubstantiated-environmental-claims

[11] ACCC takes legal action against Volkswagen over diesel emission claims – see https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-takes-action-against-volkswagen-over-diesel-emission-claims; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft [2019] FCA 2166 at http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCA/2019/2166.html


[12] Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2021] FCAFC 49 (9 April 2021) at http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2021/49.html

[13] Nappy biodegradability claims declared false and misleading - see https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/nappy-biodegradability-claims-declared-false-and-misleading

[14] Misleading conduct in relation to Goody plastic bags – see https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/misleading-conduct-in-relation-to-goody-plastic-bags

[16] Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Woolworths Limited [2019] FCA 1039 at http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCA/2019/1039.html

[17] ACCC v Woolworths Group Ltd (formerly called Woolworths Ltd) (2020) FCAFC 162 at http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2020/162.html

[18] ACCC takes court action on ‘flushable’ wipes – see https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-takes-court-action-on-flushable-wipes

[20] Pental to pay $700,000 in penalties for ‘flushable’ wipes claims – see https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/pental-to-pay-700000-in-penalties-for-%E2%80%98flushable%E2%80%99-wipes-claims; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Pental Limited [2018] FCA 491 at http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCA/2018/491.html

[21] Court finds Kimberley-Clarke did not mislead consumers with ‘flushable’ claims– see https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/court-finds-kimberly-clark-did-not-mislead-consumers-with-flushable-claims; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Kimberly-Clark Australia Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 992 at http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCA/2019/992.html

[22] EnergyAustralia clears air about green electricity claims – see https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/energyaustralia-clears-air-about-green-electricity-claims

[23] Former Greenpower retailer to purchase outstanding certificates – see https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/former-greenpower-retailer-to-purchase-outstanding-certificates

[24] ACCC institutes proceedings against Greenpower retailer for breach of undertakings - see https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-institutes-proceedings-against-greenpower-retailer-for-breach-of-undertakings; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Global Green Plan Ltd [2010] FCA 1057 at http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/1057.html

[25] Momentum Energy pays penalties of $54,000 in relation to renewable energy advertising– see https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/momentum-energy-pays-penalties-of-54000-in-relation-to-renewable-energy-advertising

[26] Green marketing and the Australian Consumer Law, 2011 – see https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Green%20marketing%20and%20the%20ACL.pdf

[27] ISO 14021:2016 - Environmental labels and declarations – Self-declared environmental claims


Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)