(a) These guides set forth the Federal Trade Commission's current views about environmental claims. The guides help marketers avoid making environmental marketing claims that are unfair or deceptive under Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45. They do not confer any rights on any person and do not operate to bind the FTC or the public. The Commission, however, can take action under the FTC Act if a marketer makes an environmental claim inconsistent with the guides. In any such enforcement action, the Commission must prove that the challenged act or practice is unfair or deceptive in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act.
(b) These guides do not preempt federal, state, or local laws. Compliance with those laws, however, will not necessarily preclude Commission law enforcement action under the FTC Act.
(c) These guides apply to claims about the environmental attributes of a product, package, or service in connection with the marketing, offering for sale, or sale of such item or service to individuals. These guides also apply to business-to-business transactions. The guides apply to environmental claims in labeling, advertising, promotional materials, and all other forms of marketing in any medium, whether asserted directly or by implication, through words, symbols, logos, depictions, product brand names, or any other means.
(d) The guides consist of general principles, specific guidance on the use of particular environmental claims, and examples. Claims may raise issues that are addressed by more than one example and in more than one section of the guides. The examples provide the Commission's views on how reasonable consumers likely interpret certain claims. The guides are based on marketing to a general audience. However, when a marketer targets a particular segment of consumers, the Commission will examine how reasonable members of that group interpret the advertisement. Whether a particular claim is deceptive will depend on the net impression of the advertisement, label, or other promotional material at issue. In addition, although many examples present specific claims and options for qualifying claims, the examples do not illustrate all permissible claims or qualifications under Section 5 of the FTC Act. Nor do they illustrate the only ways to comply with the guides. Marketers can use an alternative approach if the approach satisfies the requirements of Section 5 of the FTC Act. All examples assume that the described claims otherwise comply with Section 5. Where particularly useful, the Guides incorporate a reminder to this effect.
Notes of Decisions
Sean McGinity v. the Procter & Gamble Co., 69 F.4th 1093 (9th Cir. 2023).
“See 16 C.F.R. § 260.1 (“the Green Guides”). Greenwashing is not limited to environmental effects and is also used to describe the misleading or false labeling MCGINITY V.”
Hill v. Roll Int'l Corp., 195 Cal. App. 4th 1295 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011).
“) *1302 The guides are “administrative interpretations of laws administered by the [FTC] for the guidance of the public in conducting its affairs in conformity with legal requirements” ( 16 C.F.R. § 260.1 (2011)), and they apply to a comprehensive range of environmental claims…”
ECM BioFilms, Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 851 F.3d 599 (6th Cir. 2017).
“” 16 C.F.R. § 260.1 (a). The previous version of the Guides, issued in 1996, advised that an unqualified claim that a product is biodegradable “should be substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence that the entire product or package will completely break down and…”
Bogavac v. El Pollo Loco, Inc. (S.D. Cal. 2025).
· cites it 3× “” 16 C.F.R. § 260.1 (a)–(b). This is run-of-the-mill 22 analysis that does not risk upsetting the federal system.”
Barton v. The Procter & Gamble Co. (S.D. Cal. 2025).
· cites it 2× “” 16 C.F.R. § 260.1 (a). The Green Guides are 2 expressly intended to “help marketers avoid making environmental marketing claims that 3 are unfair or deceptive,” and they “apply to claims about the environmental attributes of a 4 product.”
Kent (N.D. Cal. 2025).
· cites it 2× “¶ 69, purportedly citing 16 C.F.R. § 260.1 ). Conopco argues in its Reply brief that 26 Plaintiff’s theory is “simply a rearticulation of its misrepresentation theory” and points out that 27 paragraph 69 of the Complaint does not, in fact, discuss its obligations under 16 C.”
Nationwide Biweekly Admin., Inc. v. Superior Court (Cal. 2020).
“4 (2020)]; Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims [ 16 C.F.R. §§ 260.1 - 260.17 (2020)].) And a brief look at just one of these FTC guidelines — the Guides Concerning Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising — provides a good indication of the type of…”
White v. The Kroger Co. (N.D. Cal. 2022).
“Furthermore, as plaintiff points out, 5 the Federal Trade Commission has promulgated “Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing 6 Claims,” codified at 16 C.F.R. 260.1, et seq. (“Green Guides”), to “help marketers avoid making 7 environmental marketing claims that are unfair…”
Swartz v. The Coca-Cola Co. (N.D. Cal. 2023).
“” 16 C.F.R. § 260.1 . The 27 California Environmental Marketing Claims Act (EMCA) codified the Green Guides to make it 1 bottles sent for recycling in California cannot be processed and end up in landfills or burned.”
Rawson v. ALDI Inc (N.D. Ill. 2022).
“” 16 C.F.R. § 260.1 (a), (d). In the FTC’s view, “[u]nqualified general environmental benefit claims…likely convey that the product .”
Curtis v. 7-Eleven, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2022).
“at ¶ 26; see also 16 C.F.R. § 260.1 et seq. According to the Green Guides, “[a] product or package should not be marketed as recyclable unless it can be collected, separated, or otherwise recovered from the waste stream through an established recycling program for reuse or use…”
Dorris v. Danone Waters of Am. (S.D.N.Y. 2024).
“16 C.F.R. § 260.1 . Specifically, the regulation provides in pertinent part: Unqualified general environmental benefit claims are difficult to interpret and likely convey a wide range of meanings.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.