From 27 September 2026, telling customers that your product is ‘climate neutral’, ‘eco-friendly’ or ‘green’ without proof will be an unfair commercial practice under Belgian Law.
Over the summer, Belgium transposed the EU Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive (the “EmpCo Directive ”). The Act of 22 July 2026 amending the Code of Economic Law introduces new rules on environmental claims, sustainability labels, product durability and unfair commercial practices, directly targeting greenwashing. These rules apply from 27 September 2026 and provide for:
- amendments to Book I of the Code of Economic Law, including the insertion and clarification of key definitions; and
- amendments to Book VI , notably extending pre-contractual information obligations and strengthening the rules on misleading and prohibited commercial practices.
These developments will have significant implications for companies’ ESG marketing, branding and labelling practices. The new framework is not intended to discourage sustainability communication. On the contrary, by enhancing the reliability and transparency of environmental claims, it allows well‑substantiated claims to remain a key lever for differentiation and competitive advantage.
To help businesses adapt, the key changes introduced by the Act of 22 July 2026 are outlined below. As the Belgian legislature opted for a close transposition of the Directive, the Act largely mirrors its substantive rules and therefore should be in line with the transposition in other EU countries.
Extension of the blacklist of unfair commercial practices (VI.100)
The Act expands the blacklist of commercial practices considered unfair, and therefore misleading, in all circumstances. No case-by-case assessment of their effect on consumers is thus required.
Restrictions on Sustainability Labels
A “sustainability label” is any voluntary trust mark, quality mark or equivalent, either public or private, that seeks to distinguish and promote a product, process or business by reference to its environmental or social characteristics, or both. It excludes any mandatory label required under EU or national law. Well-known examples include the “Certified B Corp” certification and the “Fairtrade” label.
Companies may only use sustainability labels that are established by a public authority or based on a recognised certification scheme, that is, a third-party verification process confirming that a product, process or business complies with specific requirements. Those schemes must rest on publicly available criteria and meet minimum standards of transparency, fairness and non-discrimination, including consultation of relevant experts and stakeholders.
Certification marks are a useful tool here. Registered under trade mark law as EU or Benelux trade marks, with regulations governing their use, labels registered as certification marks can be efficiently protected and enforced if the rules of use organise a sufficiently strict certification process.
Specification of generic environmental claim
Making a generic environmental claim (e.g. “climate-friendly”, “green”, “environmentally friendly”) without being able to demonstrate recognised excellent environmental performance relevant to the claim is prohibited.
Proof is deemed to be provided, for example, where the product meets the criteria for the EU Ecolabel or achieves the highest environmental performance recognised under other EU law. More broadly, the “same medium” requirement flows from the definition itself. A claim is treated as an unsubstantiated “generic environmental claim” where the specification is not provided in clear and prominent terms on the same medium as the claim (e.g. the product packaging, website or advertisement). In practice, even an otherwise accurate claim can fall foul of the rules if the supporting detail is placed elsewhere. Companies must give sufficiently precise information, on the same medium, explaining the claimed benefit so that consumers can understand its meaning and scope.
The level of detail required must be assessed case by case, taking into account (i) the overall impression conveyed to the average consumer and (ii) the characteristics and constraints of the medium used (e.g. limited space on packaging versus greater flexibility online).
Ban on misleading claims about the whole product or business
Making an environmental claim about an entire product or the trader’s entire business is prohibited when it in fact only concerns one aspect of the product or a specific, unrepresentative activity.
This applies, for example, where a product is marketed as “made with recycled material” when only its packaging is made from recycled material. Likewise, a trader may not give the impression that its operations rely exclusively on renewable energy where a significant part of its activities still depends on fossil fuels.
Ban on offset-based climate claims
Traders may no longer claim that a product has a neutral, reduced or positive environmental impact where that claim is based on the offsetting of greenhouse gas emissions. This effectively prohibits claims such as “carbon neutral” or “climate positive” that rely on emission-compensation schemes outside the product’s value chain, such as sponsoring tree planting.
Companies may still communicate genuine CO₂ reductions, provided they are based on the product’s actual lifecycle impact (covering production, use and disposal) rather than on offsetting. In practice, this means substantiating such claims with clear and detailed information on how the reductions are achieved and calculated.
The risks of offset-based climate claims were already apparent in national case law before the Belgian transposition. For instance, in a judgment of 27 June 2024, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof BGH) held that a ‘climate neutral’ claim used by a confectionery company was misleading where neutrality was achieved through carbon offsetting. The Court stressed that emission reduction and offsetting are not equivalent, and that environmental claims require a particularly high level of clarity. Crucially, it also held that referring consumers to further information via a website (QR code or URL) is insufficient: the claim had to be adequately substantiated in the advertisement itself.
Ban on presenting legally required features as distinctive
Traders may not present compliance with legal requirements that apply to all products in a given category on the EU market as a distinctive feature of their offer. The aim is to prevent businesses from claiming a competitive advantage based on characteristics that are already mandatory for every competing product.
New misleading commercial practices (Article VI.98)
In addition to the blacklist (Article VI.100), the Act also expands the catalogue of misleading actions (Article VI.98) by adding two new items.
Unlike blacklisted practices, these are assessed under the misleading-actions framework: they are prohibited where they are liable to mislead the average consumer and cause (or be likely to cause) a transactional decision that would not otherwise have been taken.
_Unsubstantiated claims about future environmental performance _
An environmental claim about the future environmental performance of a product or business (e.g. “climate neutral by 2040”, “fully circular by 2030”) is misleading unless it is supported by clear, objective, publicly available and verifiable commitments set out in a detailed and realistic implementation plan with measurable, time-bound targets and regular verification by an independent third-party expert, whose conclusions are made available to consumers.
_Advertising irrelevant benefits _
It is also misleading to advertise benefits for consumers that are not relevant and do not result from any characteristic of the product or the business. This captures “greenwashing by distraction”: highlighting in massive advertising and PR campaigns an alleged or minor advantage that has no genuine link to what is being sold or no meaningful differentiating value), but is being used to distract from that same industries’ unresolved and continued carbon footprint, emissions, contribution to deforestation etc …
Durability, repairability and software updates
Another set of provisions concern the characteristics of goods, including electronics and software, that are sold or offered for sale to consumers, notably the durability (“ the ability of the goods to maintain their required functions and performance through normal use ”) and reparability of consumer goods and the information to be given in that respect. These rules are linked to the provisions on sales to consumers in article 16bis ff. of the Old Civil Code, that cover product liability and guarantee.
Prohibitions relating to software updates, durability repairability
Again some specific practices are blacklisted (Article VI.100). It is now unlawful in all circumstances to:
- withhold from consumers that a software update will negatively affect the functioning of goods with digital elements, or the use of digital content or digital services
- present a software update as necessary to keep the product in conformity where it in fact only enhances functionality
- engage in commercial communication about a product containing a feature that limits its durability, where the trader is aware of that feature and its effects;
- falsely claim that a good has a certain durability in terms of usage time or intensity under normal conditions of use
- present a product as repairable when it is not
- induce consumers to replace or replenish a product’s consumables earlier than is technically necessary;
- withhold information about the impairment of a good’s functionality when using consumables, spare parts or accessories not supplied by the original producer.
New pre-contractual information obligations
Beyond these prohibited practices, the Act significantly increases the information that traders must provide to consumers before they are bound by a contract. In practice, this requires integrating additional disclosures into product pages, checkout flows and point-of-sale materials (not only into general conditions).
Before a contract is concluded, companies must provide, as applicable:
- the repairability score of the product, where such a score is available
- where no repairability score exists, the producer-provided repair information (spare parts availability/cost/order procedure, repair and maintenance instructions, and repair restrictions)
- the minimum period for software updates for goods with digital elements/digital content/services, where made available by the producer/provider
- the existence and duration of any producer commercial durability guarantee exceeding two years (covering the entire product), where offered and made available to the trader
- a harmonised notice on the legal guarantee of conformity (minimum two-year duration)
- where applicable, a harmonised label for the commercial durability guarantee (Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1960).
Scope of Application
The new rules apply to business-to-consumer (B2C) commercial practices, since they amend the provisions of the Code of Economic Law governing consumer rights and unfair commercial practices. Although the Act does not directly regulate business-to-business (B2B) relationships, its effects will be felt across supply chains, particularly where suppliers provide the information underpinning environmental claims, sustainability labels or durability representations. B2B suppliers should therefore expect these substantiation obligations to be passed down contractually.
Entry into force, enforcement and transitional regime
The Act enters into force on 27 September 2026.
The new rules will be enforced through the existing Belgian consumer protection framework, notably via the SPF Economy/Economic Inspectorate, besides the possibility for competitors or consumers to launch action against unfair trade practices of an undertaking. Such interventions can lead to an order of cessation of the practices, but also to significative administrative fines and, where appropriate, to damages (including compensation of consumers) or criminal investigation.
Article 15 provides for a targeted six-month transitional measure for goods produced, packaged or placed on the market before 27 September 2026, under which Article XV.2, §1 does not apply to infringements of Article VI.98, 4° and Article VI.100, 28° to 39° as introduced by the Act. This is essentially a procedural carve-out (affecting the mechanism in Article XV.2, §1), not a suspension of the substantive prohibitions themselves. The carve-out ceases to apply six months after the Act’s entry into force. In practice, enforcement risk also arises from competitor challenges and consumer/NGO complaints, and non-compliance may lead to claim withdrawal and sanctions under Book XV of the Code of Economic Law.
Conclusion
While the Act stays close to the EmpCo Directive and largely reflects the Commission’s guidance on the interpretation and application of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (2021/C 526/01), its practical impact should not be underestimated. The Act of 22 July 2026 translates general principles into operational constraints that will directly shape how companies formulate environmental claims, deploy sustainability labels, and communicate on ESG performance.
The new rules operate on two tracks. First, the Act expands the blacklist of practices deemed unfair in all circumstances, adding new per se prohibitions. Second, the Act expands the list of misleading actions by adding two new items. These capture (i) unsubstantiated claims about future environmental performance and (ii) the advertising of irrelevant benefits.
This evolving framework need not lead to “greenhushing”. On the contrary, it is an opportunity to strengthen the credibility, comparability and impact of sustainability communication. Companies that audit existing claims and labels, secure robust substantiation, and align legal and marketing teams ahead of 27 September 2026 will be best placed to build consumer trust while reducing enforcement and litigation risk.
For any questions or assistance, please contact Eric De Gryse or Cédric Henet at Simont Braun: Eric De Gryse or Cédric Henet.
This newsletter is not a legal advice or a legal opinion. You should seek advice from a legal counsel of your choice before acting upon any of the information in this newsletter.
Authors:
- Eric De Gryse, Simont Braun
- Cédric Henet, Simont Braun
