Instituto Brasileiro de Defesa do Consumidor (IDEC) vs. Gol Linhas Aéreas S/A (Greenwashing in aviation)

In November, 2025, the Instituto Brasileiro de Defesa do Consumidor (IDEC) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) against GOL Linhas Aéreas S.A., due to the alleged practice of greenwashing in the dissemination and implementation of environmental programs linked to the sale of airline tickets, notably the "Meu Voo Compensa" initiative, developed in partnership with the company MOSS, aimed at acquiring carbon credits. It is argued that, at the time of ticket purchase, consumers were encouraged to pay an additional amount for environmental compensation without clear, accessible, and scientific proof of the real effectiveness of the announced measures. It is alleged that the defendant also promoted campaigns such as "Rotas 100% Carbono Neutro" and the so-called "Avião Verde da GOL", associating visual elements and advertising narratives with a supposed environmental and climate commitment, without presenting sufficient technical data demonstrating a concrete impact on the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Plaintiffs point to Defendant GOL’s response in its other legal proceeding (Case No. 1007633-65.2025.8.26.0100)—seeking detailed clarifications from Defendant company—as demonstrating (i) lack of technical proof of the GHG Protocol methodology applied to individual passengers; (ii) lack of transparency in pricing; (iii) contractual contradiction; (iv) absence of public certification linked to the purchase of credits by passengers; (v) confirmation of the link with Moss—a company linked to projects under investigation in the Federal Police's Operation Greenwashing; (vi) use of carbon tokens without effective environmental benefit; and (vii) lack of minimal proof of the environmental claims linked to Gol's "green plane".

IDEC cites, as its legal and institutional basis, the 2025 Advisory Opinion (OC) of the International Court of Justice on climate and OC 32/2025 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which recognizes the climate emergency as a human rights issue and affirms the duty of States (and, by extension, of economic agents) to ensure access to clear environmental information based on scientific evidence, with active and passive transparency.

On the merits, IDEC requests the suspension of campaigns and communications considered misleading, the adaptation of Defendant's environmental advertising to the parameters of truthfulness and verifiability, the condemnation of GOL to pay compensation for collective moral damages, the imposition of obligations to act consisting of the disclosure of clear technical information about its environmental programs, and the adoption of structural measures to prevent new greenwashing practices in the consumer market.

The judgment was delivered and the Court dismissed the preliminary objections raised by GOL and recognized the practice of misleading environmental advertising (greenwashing), understanding that the company did not provide clear, sufficient, and verifiable information about the programs in question, especially regarding the carbon offsetting methodology, traceability of the credits used, and the effectiveness of the advertised environmental benefits. It understood that the use of claims of "carbon offsetting" and "neutralization" without due transparency violated the duty to inform stipulated in the Consumer Protection Code and misled the consumer. Thus, it ruled entirely in favor of the requests made by IDEC, ordering GOL to cease new environmental communications without auditable technical proof, to conduct counter-advertising, to remove elements related to the "GOL Green Plane," and to pay R$ 5 million in collective moral damages.