Austria shields old stock from greenwashing lawsuits

From today, a coffee pack that calls itself "climate neutral" because its maker bought carbon offsets breaks EU consumer law. Directive (EU) 2024/825 applies from 27 September 2026 (EUR-Lex). The ban applies in Austria as well. For goods already on the market by that date, however, Austria has barred civil lawsuits over the key new rules for three years, until September 2029 (Austrian Federal Law Gazette).

What the ban covers

The directive governs how products are sold, not what goes into them. It covers packaging, shelf displays and online product pages (Commission FAQ). Claims that a product's emissions are neutral or reduced because of offsetting are now banned outright (EUR-Lex).

The EU sets the rule. Each country's authorities and courts enforce it. The Commission applies the rule to old stock as well: traders must correct claims on products already in circulation, using stickers or notices near the goods where needed (Commission FAQ).

A shield from lawsuits, not from the rules

Austria's exception depends on when goods were "placed on the market." That is the legal moment a product is first supplied for distribution or sale. It does not depend on when the wrapper was printed or when the pack reached a shop shelf (Austrian Federal Law Gazette). A pack that entered the supply chain before today cannot be the subject of a civil claim under the new rules until 2029.

The rules themselves still apply, and old claims do not become true. Austria's existing ban on misleading advertising also remains in force (WKO guidance). Under Austria's unfair-competition law, such cases usually come from rival companies and consumer organisations, not individual shoppers. Those are the plaintiffs who lose their main tool.

The Wirtschaftskammer (WKO), Austria's chamber of commerce and the rule's most visible defender, gives a practical reason. It argues that pulling saleable products off shelves or pulping printed packaging costs money and creates waste (WKO guidance).

EU enforcers accepted part of that argument. On 30 June 2026, the network of national consumer authorities agreed that regulators may give businesses extra time, case by case, where correcting old stock causes genuine difficulty (CPC Common Understanding). The same document says old stock exempts no one from the rules.

That difference is the heart of the dispute. The enforcers allowed discretion, where a regulator judges each product and decides how hard to push. Austria created an exemption: a statute removes a legal remedy for a whole class of goods for a fixed period. The enforcers' flexibility does not endorse a blanket bar on lawsuits.

Critics say Austria has crossed that line. Greenpeace commissioned a legal opinion from EU-law scholar Franz Leidenmühler. It argues that the directive allows no such exception and asks how traders would prove when their goods entered the market (Greenpeace legal opinion). Foodwatch argues that stickers can fix misleading packs without destroying anything (Foodwatch). Greenpeace and the environmental law group ÖKOBÜRO have since filed a complaint with the Commission (Greenpeace complaint).

Neighbours kept it case by case

Other countries faced the same problem of old stock and did not create a fixed exemption. Denmark's Consumer Ombudsman said on 4 September that the rules also cover packaging produced before the start date (Forbrugerombudsmanden). The Dutch regulator ACM says it may take old stock into account in particular cases. It offers no general grace period (ACM).

Every EU country now bans offset-based climate claims. Most leave regulators to decide how strictly to treat older stock. Austria goes further for three years and closes the courts to the rival firms and consumer groups that would normally sue over such claims (Austrian Federal Law Gazette).

The record shows that EU enforcers approved case-by-case leeway, not a statutory bar on lawsuits (CPC Common Understanding). Whether Austria's bar breaches the directive is still undecided. The Commission can challenge it by responding to the complaint and, if it sees a breach, opening an infringement procedure (its formal process for forcing a member state to comply with EU law). If Austria resists, the EU Court of Justice would decide. The Commission's response to the Greenpeace and ÖKOBÜRO complaint is the next step.