Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs v. Katjes

In 2021, Katjes, a fruit gum manufacturer, claimed that all products were created in a climate-neutral manner. The advertisement claimed that the company offset its emissions through projects with the company ClimatePartner. The Central Office for Combating Unfair Competition (Competition Association) challenged this advertisement as misleading because consumers would assume that the fruit gums were produced without any emissions, rather than through offsets. The case was considered by two lower civil courts, which sided with Katjes on the premise that consumers can be expected to understand the term "climate neutral." On July 5, 2024, the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) overruled the lower courts for the following reasons: 1. Advertising a product as climate neutral can always be significant in the purchasing decision of customers 2. Environmental claims made in advertising have an increased risk in misleading customers due to the high personal value that the environment has for consumers 3. When making environmental claims, companies need to clarify the content of terms indicated green features of a product within the advertisement itself 4. Reduction and compensation of emission are two possible ways of achieving "climate neutrality" but are not equally valid. 5. The ambiguous term "climate neutral" may only be used if the company explains how the neutrality is achieved. Explanations must include specific details of the measures as well as any offsetting measures the company intends to take. 6. Requiring the consumer to visit separate websites for these explanations is not sufficient. If the required explanation is not contained directly in the advertisement, the term "climate neutral" is deceptive and incorrect.