Environmental and sustainability messages have become standard in corporate communications. Terms such as "sustainable", "environmentally friendly" or "organic" have a significant influence on purchasing decisions. At the same time, these claims are potentially misleading under Austrian unfair competition law due to their lack of clarity (see our Newsletter on Greenwashing)
The Directive (EU) 2024/825 (the "EmpCo Directive") further tightens the standards for green claims". The new requirements will take effect on September 27, 2026. With the government proposal for Austria’s implementation now available, the reform under the Unfair Competition Act (UWG) is taking concrete shape. This adds specific sustainability-related provisions to both the prohibition on misleading advertising and the "black list" of prohibited commercial practices under the UWG.
Overview of Key Changes
New Legal Definitions in the UWG (§ 1 Abs 4 Z 11–15 UWG)
For the first time, key terms such as "(general) environmental claim", "sustainability label" and "certification system" are defined by law. This broadens the scope of application and provides a more systematic framework for individual assessments, which have so far been largely shaped by case law.
Expansion of the "black list"
The draft bill expands the Annex to the UWG to include several new prohibited practices (in particular, sections 2a and 4a through 4c), thereby classifying certain environmental business practices as per se unlawful (see below for details). In addition, it introduces new prohibitions beyond green claims (specifically sections 23d–23j, such as those regarding durability, reparability, and software updates) and strengthens the focus on substantive sustainability with provisions on product lifespan, transparency toward consumers, and additional requirements for the use and maintenance of products.
Stricter Rules on Misleading Commercial Practices (§ 2 UWG)
Companies may only make forward-looking environmental statements on the basis of concrete, verifiable, and publicly available implementation plans, and may not highlight irrelevant or legally required characteristics (Section 2(3)(4) and (5) of the Unfair Competition Act (UWG); see also Annex Z 10a).
Abusive Cease-and-Desist Letters (§ 7a UWG)
The government proposal now also sanctions abusive cease-and-desist letters (particularly in cases of mass campaigns aimed at generating revenue): Those affected can claim injunctive relief and damages, while the party issuing the cease-and-desist letter loses its compensation right.
In practice, the changes outlined above are most evident in two particularly relevant areas: sustainability labels and general environmental claims.
Sustainability Labels: New Rules for Voluntary and Marketing-Driven Labels
Sustainability labels will be subject to stricter requirements. This applies to voluntary public or private trust labels, quality marks, or similar designations used to highlight the environmental or social characteristics of a product, process, or company. Mandatory labels required under EU law or national law are not covered.
Under the planned amendments to Annex Z 2a of the UWG, the use of a sustainability label is permissible only if it is based on a certification system or has been established by government agencies. This requires a reassessment not only of traditional labels but also of marketing-driven "green badges" and green brands, because in their overall context, they may create the impression of a sustainability label.
Companies should therefore verify whether their sustainability labels are actually based on a robust certification system or are established by the government. If not, they should make the necessary adjustments. This also means that the relevant labels must be open to third parties—including competitors in the market.
General Environmental Claims and Other Prohibitions
Another key area concerns general environmental claims. These are claims that suggest a positive environmental impact (such as "climate-friendly", "sustainable" etc.) without sufficiently specifying it. According to the Commission’s FAQs on the EmpCo Directive determining whether a claim qualifies as an environmental claim depends on the specific commercial context and the perception of the average consumer.
Under the proposed Annex Z 4a of the UWG, general environmental claims will be inadmissible if the business operator cannot provide evidence of the recognized outstanding environmental performance to which the claim refers.
Under Annex Z 4b UWG, an environmental claim regarding the entire product or the company’s entire business operations is inadmissible if it actually refers only to a specific aspect of the product or a specific activity of the company. Companies should therefore pay particular attention to whether a claim concerns only a specific aspect—such as packaging, manufacturing, or individual product components—but creates a broader impression among consumers.
Conclusion
With these stricter regulations, sustainability communication is becoming an even greater balancing act. While companies may continue to advertise environmental benefits, they must communicate them clearly, specifically, and verifiably. This is largely in line with previous case law. What is new, however, are the extensive per se prohibitions and, consequently, the elimination of the requirement to assess whether a claim is likely to be misleading.
Companies should therefore continue to carefully check their environmental communications. Of particular concern are blanket environmental statements, product- and company-related sustainability promises, and sustainability labels. For every claim, it must be clear what it specifically refers to, what evidence supports it, and whether the overall impression created by the product’s presentation, packaging, and accompanying advertising is consistent with that evidence.