When a Claim Goes Wrong: Enforcement, Remediation, and Crisis Response

Quick Read

Environmental claims investigations typically begin without warning—triggered by regulatory sweeps, competitor complaints, or media attention—and by the time a formal inquiry arrives, an organization's claims governance infrastructure largely determines the investigation's outcome. Organizations with documented environmental statement programs, current evidence for all claims, and active claims registers fare significantly better than those without such processes, regardless of initial claim accuracy. The whitepaper examines investigation triggers across major jurisdictions, enforcement processes, governance's role in outcomes, and remediation protocols for non-compliant claims.

Speeki GreenDesk™

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The investigation you don’t see coming is the one you hadn’t prepared for.

Environmental claims enforcement does not typically announce itself. It begins with a sweep — a regulator reviewing websites, packaging, and advertising across a sector. Or a competitor complaint. Or a media investigation that generates consumer complaints. Or an internet search by a regulatory analyst that turns up a claim the organisation forgot was still live.

By the time a formal enquiry arrives, the most important decisions about how the investigation will proceed have already been made — not by the organisation's response team, but by the state of its claims governance. An organisation with a documented environmental statement programme, current evidence for every claim, and a claims register that tracks what is active where will be in a fundamentally different position than one that does not.

This whitepaper sets out:

• How environmental claims investigations are triggered in each major enforcement jurisdiction

• The investigation processes: what regulators do, what they request, and what they find

• How claims governance (or its absence) determines investigation outcomes

• The range of enforcement outcomes: warnings, infringement notices, undertakings, penalties, corrective orders

• Worked examples from confirmed enforcement actions

• Remediation protocols for non-compliant claims

• Internal crisis response structure

The organisations that fare best in enforcement investigations are not necessarily those whose claims were most accurate to begin with. They are the ones that can demonstrate they had a documented process, they applied it, and when they identified a gap they acted on it. Documentation and process are as important as the underlying claim.

Section 1: How Investigations Begin: The Trigger Landscape

Understanding how investigations are triggered is essential for assessing exposure. The trigger is rarely a single claim in isolation. It is typically a pattern — identified through proactive regulatory surveillance, competitor intelligence, or public complaint — that leads a regulator to look more carefully at a specific organisation or sector.

1.1 Regulatory Sweeps

The most common trigger for multi-company investigations is a regulatory internet sweep. Regulators periodically review a cross-section of businesses in a targeted sector, assessing the environmental claims made on websites, in advertising, and on product packaging against their published guidance and the applicable legal standard.

Confirmed sweep activity:

• Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) internet sweep (2022): 247 businesses and brands across eight sectors reviewed. 57% were identified as making claims that gave rise to concern. The sweep directly preceded the ACCC's commitment to greenwashing as an enforcement priority and the subsequent proceedings against Clorox Australia and others.

• ACCC internet sweep (food and beverage sector, 2022): specific focus on food and beverage companies. 65% of the businesses examined were found to make concerning environmental claims about their products or operations.

• CMA market investigations: The CMA has conducted sector-specific market studies covering green heating and insulation (published guidance July 2024) and fashion retail (guidance published September 2024) following concerns about the prevalence of misleading environmental claims in those sectors.

Sweeps are conducted using publicly available information. Anything on a website, product label, social media profile, or published marketing material is within scope. The sweep does not require a complaint to initiate and the organisation does not know it is under review until it receives a formal information request.

1.2 Consumer and Competitor Complaints

Consumer complaints to national consumer protection authorities, advertising standards bodies, and sector regulators are a significant source of investigation triggers. In the UK, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) receives consumer complaints about advertising claims as a standard part of its operations; an ASA finding against an organisation frequently precedes or accompanies a Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) investigation.

Competitor complaints are a less public but significant source of claims investigations. A competitor that believes a rival is making misleading environmental claims gains a market advantage from them — and has a direct commercial incentive to report them to the relevant authority.

1.3 Media Investigations

Investigative journalism on greenwashing has become a significant trigger for regulatory action. A media investigation that identifies a specific potentially misleading claim — particularly one that generates significant public attention — typically results in regulatory review of that claim, and often of the organisation's wider claims portfolio.

Media investigations typically include Freedom of Information requests for regulatory correspondence, review of scientific literature, and interviews with independent experts who are asked to assess specific claims against applicable standards. This means the media investigation itself may produce a substantive technical assessment of the claim before the regulator has formally intervened.

1.4 Third-Party Referrals and NGO Activity

Environmental NGOs and civil society organisations actively monitor corporate environmental claims and refer apparently misleading claims to regulators. In Australia, the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ACCR) has brought or contributed to proceedings involving alleged climate-related greenwashing. In the UK, ClientEarth, ShareAction, and similar organisations have been active in raising complaints about ESG-related claims in the financial sector.

NGO-initiated referrals tend to focus on climate and carbon claims, particularly net zero and carbon neutrality claims that the organisations consider to be insufficiently substantiated or offset-dominant.

1.5 Proactive Disclosure: Infringement Notices and Self-Reporting

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) in Australia issues infringement notices as a lower-level enforcement tool for apparent breaches where the conduct is less severe. An infringement notice requires payment of a specified penalty (which for ASIC's infringement notices is significantly lower than a civil penalty proceeding) within 12 business days, without admission of liability. The organisation can choose to pay (which resolves the matter) or contest the notice.

ASIC issued infringement notices to multiple financial sector entities for greenwashing before escalating to full civil penalty proceedings in the more serious cases. The infringement notice process is therefore both a trigger and an early warning signal.

Section 2: The Investigation Process: Jurisdiction by Jurisdiction

2.1 Australia: ACCC

Investigation Initiation

An ACCC greenwashing investigation typically begins with an initial review of publicly available information. If the ACCC identifies claims that raise concerns, it may issue a formal information-gathering notice under Section 155 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. A Section 155 notice requires the recipient to produce documents, provide information, or attend for examination. Failure to comply without reasonable excuse is a criminal offence.

The Section 155 notice is a significant step. It signals that the ACCC has moved from initial review to formal investigation. The notice typically requests:

• All documents relating to the specific claims identified, including the evidence assembled to support them

• All documents relating to the organisation's process for developing and approving environmental claims

• Communications between marketing, sustainability, and legal teams regarding the specific claims

• Any third-party assessments, laboratory reports, or certifications

• Any consumer research or testing relating to how the claims are understood

Substantiation Notices

Separately from the Section 155 process, the ACCC can issue a substantiation notice under Section 51AAB of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, requiring a business to provide information or documents substantiating a specific claim within a defined timeframe. Failure to comply, or providing information that is false or misleading, is a civil contravention.

Enforcement Outcomes

The ACCC has a range of enforcement tools available after completing its investigation:

• Court-enforceable undertakings: the organisation agrees to specified changes, typically including removal or modification of the non-compliant claims, implementation of a compliance programme, and often reporting obligations. The ACCC's undertaking with MOO Premium Foods Pty Ltd (accepted by the ACCC Chair on 24 November 2023) resolved concerns about the company's '100% ocean plastic' representations on its yoghurt tubs. The ACCC's investigation found the plastic was collected from coastal areas in Malaysia, not directly from the ocean as the claim implied. MOO admitted the representations likely contravened the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) and committed to removing all ocean plastic claims from packaging and social media, publishing corrective notices for 60 days, and implementing an ACL compliance programme.

• Civil penalty proceedings in the Federal Court: the most serious outcome. The ACCC v Clorox Australia Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 357 (proceedings commenced April 2024, penalty ordered 14 April 2025) and ACCC v Australian Gas Networks Limited (proceedings commenced 26 June 2025) are confirmed examples.

• Infringement notices: used for less serious apparent contraventions; typically lower-value financial penalties without admission of liability.

2.2 Australia: ASIC

ASIC's enforcement process follows a similar pattern to the ACCC's, but is focused on financial products and services governed by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) and the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). ASIC's investigative tools include examination of product disclosure statements, websites, media releases, and marketing materials for ESG claims; requests for documents and information under its examination powers; and civil penalty proceedings in the Federal Court.

Confirmed ASIC civil penalty proceedings outcomes relating to ESG and climate claims include:

• ASIC v Mercer Superannuation (Australia) Limited [2024] FCA 850: AUD 11.3 million penalty ordered by the Federal Court on 2 August 2024. ASIC's first successful greenwashing civil penalty proceeding. Concerned misleading representations on Mercer's website about seven 'Sustainable Plus' investment options offered in the Mercer Super Trust, which were marketed as excluding investments in carbon-intensive fossil fuels, alcohol, and gambling, among others, when the options in fact provided exposure to companies involved in those activities. Period of conduct: 12 November 2021 onwards. Additional orders: AUD 200,000 costs contribution; adverse publicity order requiring Mercer to publish a corrective notice on its 'Sustainable Investing Webpage' for six months.

• ASIC v Vanguard Investments Australia Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 1086: AUD 12.9 million penalty ordered by the Federal Court on 25 September 2024. At the time, the highest greenwashing penalty in Australia. Concerned misleading claims about ESG exclusionary screens applied to the Vanguard Ethically Conscious Global Aggregate Bond Index Fund from August 2018 to February 2021. ASIC originally sought AUD 21.6 million; the court applied a 25% discount for cooperation. Merits judgment: ASIC v Vanguard Investments Australia Ltd [2024] FCA 308 (March 2024). Additional order: adverse publicity notice.

• ASIC v LGSS Pty Ltd (as trustee for Active Super) (No 3) [2025] FCA: AUD 10.5 million penalty ordered by the Federal Court on 18 March 2025. ASIC's third successful greenwashing civil penalty action. Concerned misleading representations about Active Super's green and ESG credentials, including misrepresentations about ESG investment screens that the fund claimed it applied but did not consistently apply. Liability finding: June 2024. Additional order: adverse publicity notice.

ASIC's 2024 report (REP 791) identified the key failure modes it had found in its surveillance: vague and aspirational ESG language not matched by actual investment criteria; claims overstating the scope or rigour of ESG screening; sustainability metrics based on inconsistent methodologies; and future climate commitments without supporting implementation plans.

2.3 United Kingdom: CMA

Investigation Process Under the DMCCA (from 6 April 2025)

Under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA, in force 6 April 2025), the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) now has significantly streamlined direct enforcement powers. The investigation process under the DMCCA operates as follows:

• Opening: The CMA opens an investigation following its own intelligence gathering, a complaint, or a referral. It publishes information about investigations on its website.

• Information gathering: The CMA requires the business to provide documents and information. The timeframes for responding to CMA information requests under the DMCCA are tighter than under the prior regime. Businesses need robust internal response protocols.

• Provisional decision: If the CMA considers a breach has occurred, it issues a provisional decision setting out its case. The business has an opportunity to respond.

• Final decision: The CMA issues a final decision. If it finds a breach, it can require the business to comply with directions, accept undertakings, and/or impose a fine.

• Fines: Up to 10% of global annual turnover or £300,000, whichever is greater. Daily penalties apply for continued non-compliance. The CMA's penalty calculation takes into account seriousness, culpability, business size, and mitigating factors including genuine attempts to comply and proactive correction before formal investigation.

The CMA has confirmed that it will weigh a business's genuine attempts to comply and proactive correction before investigation as mitigating factors. This creates a direct commercial incentive to identify and correct non-compliant claims before an investigation begins — not to avoid investigation necessarily, but to improve the outcome if one occurs.

Prior CMA Enforcement (Pre-DMCCA)

CMA enforcement before 6 April 2025 required court proceedings. The CMA secured binding undertakings from ASOS, Boohoo, and George at Asda (March 2024) and undertakings from Unilever (November 2024) following investigations into environmental claims in the fashion and consumer goods sectors respectively.

These undertakings required the organisations to: ensure all environmental claims are accurate and substantiated; remove unqualified claims that could not be substantiated; implement internal review processes for environmental claims; provide regular compliance reports to the CMA; and make certain claims-specific changes to their marketing materials.

2.4 European Union: National Authorities Under the UCPD and EmpCo

Enforcement of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD, Directive 2005/29/EC, as amended by the EmpCo Directive — Directive (EU) 2024/825 on Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition) is through national consumer protection authorities in each member state. The regulatory enforcement landscape therefore varies across the 27 member states, with different authorities, processes, and penalty levels.

The EmpCo Directive requires member states to apply penalties that are effective, proportionate, and dissuasive. For widespread infringements coordinated across member states, penalties must be capable of reaching at least 4% of annual turnover in the relevant member state, or EUR 2 million where turnover data is unavailable.

As at the date of this publication, enforcement of the EmpCo Directive provisions will begin from 27 September 2026 when the national transposing provisions apply. Businesses should anticipate that national consumer protection authorities will be active in identifying early test cases — particularly for the blacklisted practices (generic claims, offset-based carbon neutrality claims, and sustainability labels without independent certification) which are the most clearly defined prohibitions.

Pre-existing national enforcement examples include actions by the French DGCCRF against misleading environmental claims, German enforcement under the Act Against Unfair Competition (UWG), and Dutch ACM actions. Each operates under its national law implementation of the UCPD.

2.5 United States: FTC and State Enforcement

Enforcement of green claims at the federal level in the United States operates through Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45), which prohibits deceptive acts and practices. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) can bring civil penalty actions, issue consent orders, and seek injunctions. The FTC has historically brought enforcement actions involving misleading recyclability claims, certification misrepresentations, and biodegradability claims. Its Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (the Green Guides, 16 CFR Part 260, last revised 2012) are the operative benchmark for what constitutes deception in environmental marketing claims.

State attorneys general also have enforcement authority under state consumer protection laws. California's enforcement framework for SB 343 (recyclability) and AB 1305 (voluntary carbon market disclosures) involves the California Attorney General, district attorneys, city attorneys, and private plaintiffs.

Section 3: What Regulators Look For: The Investigation Focus Areas

Based on the confirmed enforcement actions of 2022–2025, the following are the specific areas regulators focus on in green claims investigations. Understanding these focus areas helps organisations assess their exposure and prioritise remediation.

Section 4: Enforcement Outcomes: What Happens and What It Costs

Enforcement outcomes range from informal resolution to civil penalty proceedings in federal or national courts. The outcome in any specific case depends on the severity of the conduct, the quality of the organisation's governance, the extent of consumer harm, and the organisation's response during the investigation.

4.1 Non-Financial Consequences

In addition to direct financial penalties, enforcement actions carry significant non-financial consequences that are often more commercially damaging:

• Reputational damage: Enforcement actions are typically publicised. The combination of a regulator's press notice, media coverage, and social media amplification creates reputational exposure that reaches well beyond the specific claim under investigation.

• Corrective notice obligations: Court orders and undertakings frequently require the organisation to publish corrective notices on its website and/or social media platforms. In ACCC v Clorox Australia [2025] FCA 357, the court ordered corrective notices on both the GLAD Australia website and social media platforms. This is a public, branded admission of prior misleading conduct that reaches consumers who may have purchased the product on the strength of the original claim.

• Compliance programme obligations: Undertakings and court orders typically require implementation of a formal compliance programme for a period of years (commonly three years), with reporting obligations. This creates an ongoing operational burden and an ongoing exposure to further enforcement if compliance programme requirements are not met.

• Procurement and investor consequences: An enforcement action, or even a public investigation, can affect supplier relationships, procurement standing, and investor confidence. ESG-linked financing with environmental claims-based covenants may be affected.

• Management time: The legal and management resources required to respond to a formal investigation are substantial, particularly where information requests are extensive and the investigation extends over months or years.

Section 5: How Governance Determines Outcomes

The single most important factor in determining the outcome of a green claims enforcement investigation is the state of the organisation's claims governance at the time the investigation begins. This is not an opinion — it is reflected directly in the penalty factors that regulators apply and in the confirmed outcomes of enforcement proceedings.

5.1 Factors That Improve Outcomes

• Documented environmental statement programme: Demonstrates systemic compliance intent. An organisation that can show the regulator a documented programme, a claims register, and evidence files is demonstrably different from one that cannot. The CMA has explicitly stated that genuine attempts to comply and proactive correction before formal investigation are mitigating factors in its penalty calculations.

• Current evidence for all claims: Demonstrates that the claim was substantiated at the time it was made and has been maintained. Evidence that predates the claim is significantly more persuasive than evidence assembled after the investigation began.

• Prompt response and proactive remediation: Organisations that identify issues and correct them before the investigation, or immediately on receiving a regulatory enquiry, demonstrate good faith that regulators treat as mitigating. The organisations that fare worst are those that resist, delay, or contest findings without merit.

• Cooperation with information requests: Providing complete and accurate responses to regulatory information requests promptly signals cooperation. Incomplete responses, delays, or apparent concealment are aggravating factors.

• Board-level awareness and oversight: Regulators are more likely to regard a compliance failure as systemic and remediable if the board was not aware of the issue and acts decisively when informed. A board that was aware of the claim risk and approved it faces greater accountability.

5.2 Factors That Worsen Outcomes

• No documented process: Demonstrates that the claim was made without systemic compliance infrastructure. No programme, no register, no evidence file means the organisation cannot demonstrate any due diligence.

• Evidence assembled after investigation begins: Strongly suggests the claim was made without adequate prior substantiation. Regulators treat this as indicating that the required evidence did not exist when the claim was made.

• Internal communications showing known risk: Documents showing that concerns about a claim's accuracy were raised internally but not acted on are extremely adverse. They demonstrate awareness of potential non-compliance that was not corrected.

• Outdated or expired evidence: Demonstrates failure to comply with the ongoing obligation to maintain claims. Even where evidence was adequate initially, failure to update it demonstrates systemic governance failure.

• Scope mismatch between claim and evidence: A claim that is broader than the evidence that supports it demonstrates that the claim was made in excess of what the organisation could substantiate.

The Clorox case (ACCC v Clorox Australia Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 357) illustrates the evidentiary dynamic with precision. The issue was not that the plastic collected was environmentally worthless — collecting plastic from communities near the ocean in Indonesia is still better than landfill. The issue was that the claim 'ocean plastic' created an impression (that the plastic came from the ocean) that was materially different from the reality (plastic collected from communities up to 50 kilometres inland from a coastline). The Federal Court accepted that Clorox genuinely believed its products would contribute to reducing plastic waste in the ocean and did not deliberately mislead. But good faith belief is not a defence under the Australian Consumer Law. When a gap exists between what a claim implies and what the evidence shows, and when it existed at the time the claim was deployed, the outcome is enforcement.

Section 6: Remediation: Responding to a Non-Compliant Claim

Whether a non-compliant claim is identified through an internal audit, a regulator's enquiry, or a media investigation, the remediation process follows the same sequence. Speed and documentation are the critical variables.

6.1 Immediate Actions

On identifying a potentially non-compliant claim:

• Preserve all documents: all emails, evidence files, approvals records, and internal communications relating to the claim must be preserved immediately. Do not delete or alter any documents.

• Record the discovery: document when, how, and by whom the concern was identified. This creates a clear record of the organisation's response timeline.

• Legal privilege: seek external legal advice under legal professional privilege if the matter may result in regulatory proceedings. Communications with external counsel seeking legal advice are protected; communications between employees about the issue are generally not.

• Identify the full scope: determine all channels and markets where the claim appears. A claim on packaging may also appear on a website, in advertising, in export markets, and in sustainability reports. All instances need to be managed.

• Do not make further communications about the claim publicly: until the legal position has been assessed, no public statements should be made that could be used in subsequent proceedings.

6.2 Assessment

Conduct a rapid technical assessment of the specific claim against ISO 14021 requirements for the relevant claim category and the applicable regulatory frameworks in the markets where it appears. The assessment should address:

• Does the claim as published comply with ISO 14021? Which specific requirements are at issue?

• Is there adequate current evidence? If not, when was the evidence last reviewed?

• Is there a scope mismatch between the claim and the evidence?

• Are there internal documents that are adverse (communications showing known risk, deferred evidence reviews)?

• What is the regulatory risk in each jurisdiction where the claim appears?

6.3 Decision: Remove, Modify, or Defend

The assessment informs one of three responses:

• Remove the claim: where the claim cannot be substantiated and cannot be adequately qualified, it should be removed from all channels immediately. Removal is not admission of liability, but it eliminates ongoing exposure and demonstrates good faith.

• Modify the claim: where the claim is substantiated but inadequately qualified, or where the claim's scope exceeds its evidence, a modified claim may be deployable. The modification must address the specific compliance gap identified. Generic fine-print modifications that do not address the substance of the gap are not remediation.

• Defend the claim: where the assessment concludes that the claim is compliant and there is strong evidence, the organisation should be prepared to defend it with the available documentation. Defence requires confidence in both the technical compliance position and the completeness of the evidence file.

6.4 Proactive Engagement with Regulators

Where a formal investigation has begun, proactive engagement with the regulator — providing complete and prompt responses to information requests, identifying the steps taken to address the concern, and cooperating with the process — is consistently treated as a mitigating factor in penalty decisions across all major jurisdictions.

Organisations should resist the instinct to minimise or contest in the early stages of an investigation. Regulators who identify obstruction or incomplete disclosure escalate more quickly and apply aggravated penalty factors. Regulators who find cooperative, well-documented responses are more likely to resolve through undertakings rather than civil penalty proceedings.

6.5 Corrective Communications

Where a claim has been found non-compliant, or where the organisation has proactively identified a compliance failure, a corrective communication may be appropriate or required. The form of corrective communication depends on the severity and reach of the original claim:

• For claims that appeared on product packaging: removal at the next production run is typically required; corrective notices on the website and at point of sale may also be required

• For claims that appeared in advertising: removal of the advertisement; potentially a corrective notice through the same media channel

• For claims that appeared in sustainability reports or investor communications: correction in the next report; potential notification to investors or rating agencies where the claim was material

Corrective communications should be accurate, specific, and non-disparaging. They should describe what the previous claim stated, what was incorrect about it, and what the corrected position is. They should not use language that minimises the prior error in a way that itself creates a misleading impression about the severity of the compliance failure.

Section 7: Internal Crisis Response Structure

Organisations that respond well to environmental claims investigations have typically prepared their response structure before they need it. The following framework can be adapted to any organisation's governance structure.

7.1 The Core Response Team

• Legal lead (General Counsel or external counsel): Manages legal privilege, regulator engagement, and litigation risk. All external communications with the regulator go through or are reviewed by the legal lead.

• Sustainability/ESG lead: Provides technical assessment of the claim against ISO 14021 and applicable standards. Identifies what evidence exists and where the gaps are.

• Communications lead: Manages internal communications to prevent inadvertent public statements that could be used in proceedings; manages external communications if and when they are required.

• Operations lead: Identifies all channels and markets where the claim appears; manages claim removal or modification across those channels.

• Executive sponsor (CEO or CFO): Ensures board awareness; makes decisions about regulatory engagement posture and settlement authority.

7.2 Documentation Throughout

Every decision made during the response should be documented: when the concern was identified; who assessed it; what the assessment found; what options were considered; what decision was made and why; and who approved it. This documentation serves two purposes: it creates an internal governance record, and it creates the material for demonstrating good faith and cooperation to the regulator.

7.3 The Claims Register in a Crisis

An organisation with an active claims register can respond to a regulatory information request about its active claims, evidence files, and review history in hours rather than days. An organisation without one faces the prospect of assembling this information from scattered sources across multiple teams and systems under time pressure. The claims register's value in a crisis is precisely proportional to its currency and completeness in normal operations.

Conclusion

The best outcome in a green claims enforcement investigation is the investigation that never begins because the claims are accurate, the evidence is current, and the governance is documented. The second-best outcome is the investigation that resolves through undertakings or warnings because the organisation can demonstrate it had a process, applied it in good faith, and corrected any identified gaps promptly. The worst outcome — civil penalty proceedings, corrective notices, and compliance programmes — is the outcome that follows when claims were made without adequate evidence, governance was absent, and the response was slow or adversarial.

Governance is not a compliance cost. It is the infrastructure that determines which of these outcomes an organisation faces.

About Speeki GreenDesk™

Speeki GreenDesk™ provides independent pre-publication assessment of environmental claims — the most effective form of enforcement prevention. Claims assessed and verified before publication carry documented evidence of compliance that is material in any subsequent regulatory investigation.

Confirmed Enforcement References

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Clorox Australia Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 357: Federal Court of Australia. Proceedings commenced April 2024 (ACCC media release, 18 April 2024). Penalty of AUD 8.25 million ordered by the court on 14 April 2025. AUD 200,000 costs contribution ordered. Injunction restraining further ocean plastic claims ordered. Corrective notices on GLAD Australia website and social media platforms ordered. ACCC alleged and Clorox admitted that between June 2021 and July 2023, GLAD to be GREEN '50% Ocean Plastic Recycled' bags were misrepresented as containing plastic collected from the ocean when the plastic was collected from communities in Indonesia up to 50km from a shoreline. More than 2.2 million products supplied. Clorox discontinued products July 2023 following ACCC investigation commencement.

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and MOO Premium Foods Pty Ltd: Court-enforceable undertaking accepted by ACCC Chair on 24 November 2023. ACCC concerned that '100% ocean plastic' representations on yoghurt tubs gave impression packaging was made from plastic collected directly from the ocean, when plastic resin was collected from coastal areas in Malaysia. MOO admitted representations likely contravened the Australian Consumer Law. MOO undertook to: remove all ocean plastic representations from packaging, website, and social media; publish corrective notices on website and social media for 60 days; conduct internal audits; and implement an ACL compliance programme. ACCC found disclaimers on packaging were insufficient to overcome the headline '100% ocean plastic' claim.

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Australian Gas Networks Limited: Federal Court of Australia. Proceedings commenced 26 June 2025 (ACCC media release, 26 June 2025). ACCC alleges false and misleading representations in Australian Gas Networks' 'Love Gas' TV and digital advertising campaign, which ran on free-to-air television, streaming services, and YouTube during 2022 and 2023. Campaign phrases included: 'Some things never change, but the flame we use will', 'It’s becoming renewable', 'For this generation and the next', and 'Love gas. Love a renewable gas future.' ACCC alleges Australian Gas Networks did not have reasonable grounds for the unqualified claim that gas would be renewable within a generation. Proceedings triggered by complaints from the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF). Australian Gas Networks is defending the proceedings.

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Edgewell Personal Care Australia Pty Ltd: Federal Court of Australia. Proceedings commenced July 2025. ACCC alleges false or misleading 'reef friendly' representations on Banana Boat and Hawaiian Tropic sunscreen products, and that certain sunscreen ingredients could harm coral reefs contrary to the claims made. Proceedings ongoing as at date of publication.

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Mercer Superannuation (Australia) Limited [2024] FCA 850: Federal Court of Australia. Penalty of AUD 11.3 million ordered on 2 August 2024. ASIC's first successful greenwashing civil penalty proceeding. AUD 200,000 costs contribution ordered. Adverse publicity order: corrective notice on Mercer's Sustainable Investing Webpage for six months. Mercer admitted misleading representations on its website about seven 'Sustainable Plus' investment options in the Mercer Super Trust, which were marketed as excluding investments in carbon-intensive fossil fuels, alcohol production, and gambling, among others, when the options in fact exposed members to companies involved in those activities. Period of conduct: 12 November 2021 onwards.

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Vanguard Investments Australia Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 1086: Federal Court of Australia. Penalty of AUD 12.9 million ordered on 25 September 2024. At time of imposition, the highest greenwashing penalty in Australia. Adverse publicity notice ordered. ASIC originally sought AUD 21.6 million; court applied a 25% discount for cooperation. Vanguard admitted misleading representations about ESG exclusionary screens applied to the Vanguard Ethically Conscious Global Aggregate Bond Index Fund from August 2018 to February 2021. Liability judgment: ASIC v Vanguard Investments Australia Ltd [2024] FCA 308 (March 2024).

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v LGSS Pty Ltd (as trustee for Active Super) (No 3): Federal Court of Australia. Penalty of AUD 10.5 million ordered on 18 March 2025. ASIC's third successful greenwashing civil penalty action. Adverse publicity notice ordered. Concerned misleading representations about Active Super's green and ESG investment screen credentials. Liability finding: June 2024.

Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ACCR) v Santos Limited: Federal Court of Australia. Proceedings commenced August 2021. Hearing October–December 2024. Judgment handed down by Justice Markovic on 17 February 2026: each of the ACCR's claims of misleading or deceptive conduct was dismissed in full. ACCR ordered to pay Santos' costs. The court found Santos had reasonable grounds for its net zero targets and roadmap when published and that the statements were not misleading or likely to mislead. ACCR has since filed an appeal. This is recognised as the first global court case challenging the veracity of a company's net zero emissions plan as misleading.

Competition and Markets Authority (UK). Investigation into ASOS, Boohoo, and George at Asda. Concluded March 2024 with legally binding commitments on environmental claims in the fashion retail sector. CMA press notice, 27 March 2024. cma.gov.uk.

Competition and Markets Authority (UK). Investigation into Unilever plc. Concluded November 2024 with Unilever making changes to certain environmental claims on household products. CMA press notice, November 2024. cma.gov.uk.

Competition and Markets Authority (UK). Green Claims Code. Published September 2021. Available at cma.gov.uk.

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (UK). In force 6 April 2025.

ASIC REP 791. How ASIC assessed potential greenwashing by superannuation and investment funds. Australian Securities and Investments Commission, August 2024. asic.gov.au.

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Internet sweep of environmental and sustainability claims across 247 businesses and brands (2022). ACCC media release, 13 October 2022. 57% of businesses reviewed raised concerns.

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Environmental and sustainability claims — a guide for business. December 2023. accc.gov.au.

ISO 14021:2016. Environmental labels and declarations — Self-declared environmental claims (Type II environmental labelling). Second edition. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.

Note: This whitepaper does not constitute legal advice. All enforcement case references are to publicly available information. Organisations facing regulatory investigations should obtain legal advice from qualified counsel in the relevant jurisdictions.