Environmental claims such as ‘environmentally friendly’, ‘climate-neutral’ or ‘sustainable’, as well as statements regarding the durability of products, have a significant impact on purchasing decisions.

The 2026 amendment to the Unfair Competition Act (UWG) defines, for the first time, key terms such as ‘environmental claim’ and ‘sustainability label’, and expands the ‘blacklist’ of practices that are prohibited per se – such as self-awarded eco-labels without independent certification, vague environmental claims without evidence, or ‘climate neutrality’ achieved solely through the purchase of emission allowances.

As a new, immediately noticeable measure to protect consumers and competition, the amendment tackles misleading practices arising from the deliberate underreporting of, or incorrect information regarding, a product’s lifespan (‘planned obsolescence’).

In today’s guest article for “Die Presse”, we examine the changes brought about by the 2026 amendment to the Unfair Competition Act (UWG). You can find the original text here:

New law to combat print tricks and exaggerated eco-claims

A comprehensive reform of competition law aims to curb greenwashing and planned obsolescence. A guest article.

Die Presse – Law 2026/259 · Issue 39 dated 21 September 2026

Imagine you are standing in a supermarket in front of two bottles of washing-up liquid. One features a bright green leaf and the words ‘climate-neutral, sustainable, eco-friendly’. The other has plain packaging. Which one would you choose?

The devastating forest fires in Europe in the summer of 2026 once again starkly highlighted the urgency of environmental and sustainability issues. Added to this is the growing social and commercial pressure relating to environmental protection. Acting ‘sustainably’ is increasingly becoming a basic requirement rather than a ‘trend’.

It is precisely these aspects that companies are attempting to exploit for commercial gain, often through dubious practices. From 27 September 2026, this is set to become considerably more difficult: a far-reaching amendment to the Federal Act against Unfair Competition (UWG) is intended to take the fight against greenwashing to a new level and have significance beyond that too.

Greenwashing

The importance of environmental considerations in business decisions is growing. However, new plastic is usually cheaper than recycled material, and buying new is often more profitable than recycling. Advertising claims such as ‘environmentally friendly’, ‘climate-neutral’ or ‘sustainable’ have an almost magical effect on purchasing decisions, but putting them into practice entails significant costs. This regularly creates a discrepancy for companies between economic business processes and market demand.

The result: products or company activities are often presented to consumers as being more environmentally friendly than they actually are. Products are subject to ‘greenwashing’ or ‘green claims’. Deceived and misled in this way, business decisions may be taken that would not otherwise have been made. The legal tool to combat this has been, and remains, the Austrian Unfair Competition Act (UWG), particularly its prohibition on misleading advertising.

As early as 1983, the Supreme Court (OGH) had to deal with a case involving a supposedly ‘biodegradable’ washing powder. Since then, the OGH has established a strict line of case law.

In 2018, it ruled that a company was engaging in greenwashing by advertising its plastic bottles with the slogan ‘Made with 50 per cent plastic waste from the sea’, even though the recycled plastic actually came from beaches and riverbanks around Rio de Janeiro. A similar fate befell a company that advertised its beer as ‘brewed CO₂-neutrally’, without this claim also covering the CO₂-intensive malting process. According to the case law, the average consumer would understand this to refer to the entire production process – including malting.

Under this ‘principle of strict interpretation’, environmental claims may only be used in advertising if they are not misleading to the targeted consumer and can be unequivocally substantiated. Anyone advertising as ‘green’ has therefore always had to be able to back up their claims.

Is everything new in the UWG?

Is everything new in the UWG now? In short: no, but it is clearer. For the first time, the amendment defines key terms such as ‘environmental claim’ and ‘sustainability label’.

Environmental promises for the future, such as ‘climate-neutral by 2035’, must in future be substantiated by a clear, objective, publicly accessible implementation plan with measurable, time-bound targets and regular verification by an independent expert. ‘We’re going greener’ is misleading if it is merely an announcement without substance.

Above all, however, the ‘blacklist’ in the annex to the UWG is growing, listing acts that are prohibited per se and for which no time-consuming case-by-case assessment is required, such as:

• Self-proclaimed eco-labels: Sustainability labels without state endorsement or independent third-party certification will be prohibited in future.
• Vague environmental claims without evidence: Terms such as ‘environmentally friendly’ or ‘climate-friendly’ will be prohibited in future without evidence of recognised environmental performance (such as the EU Ecolabel).
• The part does not represent the whole: Anyone who advertises their entire product or company as sustainable, even though this relates to only one aspect – such as packaging made from recycled material – is engaging in misleading practice, which is prohibited per se.
• An end to the ‘indulgence trade’: Anyone who labels a product as ‘climate-neutral’ solely on the basis of purchased emission allowances, rather than actually reducing their own emissions, will be acting unfairly in future.

Planned obsolescence

For consumers, the most interesting part of the amendment is likely to be the crackdown on ‘planned obsolescence’ – the deliberate shortening of a product’s lifespan, a constant nuisance with high potential for frustration. In future, it will be prohibited, amongst other things, to falsely advertise products as repairable, to persuade consumers to replace ink cartridges or filters prematurely (the classic ‘printer trick’), to pass off mere functional updates as necessary security updates, or to conceal the fact that an update slows down the device. It is equally unfair to conceal the fact that the use of third-party spare parts or accessories impairs functionality, or to make false claims about durability. Unlike greenwashing, this is not merely a tightening of existing case law, but a new, immediately tangible consumer protection measure.

Is ‘AI-washing’ on the horizon?

Particularly in an age of enormous volumes of information and stimuli, it is essential to protect consumers from misleading claims which they are effectively unable to verify. The more important a piece of information is for purchasing decisions, the more significant the need for protection becomes. The broad prohibition on misleading practices under the UWG (Unfair Competition Act) in principle also covers all (other) statements and advertisements lacking a corresponding factual basis. In our view, the implications of the 2026 amendment to the UWG can therefore certainly be applied by way of interpretation, albeit not without limitations.

It will therefore be interesting to observe whether and how case law applies the codified ‘greenwashing’ principles to other, similarly sensitive areas, such as advertising using health-related terms or artificial intelligence (‘AI-washing’).

Conclusion

Greenwashing was already covered by the UWG’s prohibition on misleading advertising; the amendment now enshrines these strict standards in law and, to the extent of the ‘blacklist’, eliminates the need for case-by-case assessment. It also addresses the particularly vexing issue of planned obsolescence. For consumers, the amendment provides greater legal certainty, but no guarantee against greenwashing. A healthy dose of scepticism remains advisable. For businesses, 27 September 2026 is a deadline that should be taken seriously. Environmental claims must be transparent, accurate and substantiated, and must be justified within the company’s own value chain. Advertising and sustainability labels must be reviewed, and compliance structures established. Violations may result in class actions, claims for damages and administrative penalties; in the worst case, even criminal consequences

Further links

Direct link to the article in “Die Presse” (paywall)