{"id":102007,"date":"2025-05-08T11:51:53","date_gmt":"2025-05-08T09:51:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/packaging-journal.de\/?p=102007"},"modified":"2025-05-08T11:50:03","modified_gmt":"2025-05-08T09:50:03","slug":"lawsuit-against-advertising-with-biobased-packaging-successful","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/packaging-journal.de\/en\/klage-gegen-werbung-mit-biobasierter-verpackung-erfolgreich\/","title":{"rendered":"Lawsuit against advertising with \u201ebio-based\u201c packaging successful"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Federation of German Consumer Organisations (vzbv) successfully took legal action against \u201emisleading\u201c organic advertising by VF Nutrition GmbH.<\/strong><\/p>\n

A company may not advertise \u201ebio-based\u201c packaging without restriction if it also contains fossil raw materials. This was decided by the Berlin Court of Appeal against VF Nutrition GmbH, which had advertised a \u201esupposedly\u201c bio-based Tetra Pak for a plant-based drink made from pea protein. The Federation of German Consumer Organisations (vzbv) had criticised the advertising for suggesting that the product was made exclusively from renewable raw materials.<\/p>\n

\u201ePackaging and lid are bio-based\u201c was written at the top of the carton of the product \u201evly Unsweetened\u201c, a plant-based drink made from pea protein that is offered as a milk alternative. The small asterisk at the end of the sentence led to a link to the manufacturer's website. Only those who accessed the page and searched for more detailed information were able to find out that the packaging was not produced entirely from renewable raw materials, but only 82 per cent according to the manufacturer, explains the vzbv.<\/p>

\"\"<\/a><\/div><\/div>\n

Ambiguous advertising was \u201emisleading\u201c<\/h3>\n

The Berlin Court of Appeal agreed with the vzbv that the disputed advertising was misleading. The term \u201ebiobased\u201c was not clearly defined. It could mean that renewable raw materials merely form the basis, to which other fossil raw materials can also be added during the manufacturing process. However, a not insignificant proportion of the targeted consumers would understand the term to mean that the advertised packaging was made from 100 % renewable raw materials. The risk of misleading advertising is not eliminated by a clarifying statement, it says. The asterisk reference on the company's website is not sufficient.<\/strong> The explanations, which could only be taken note of after accessing the website, were in any case too late. At most, a negligible proportion of consumers will inform themselves about the composition of the product packaging on the manufacturer's website before making a purchase decision.<\/p>\n

Court emphasises strict requirements for organic advertising<\/h3>\n

The Court of Appeal emphasised that because terms such as \u201eenvironmentally friendly\u201c or \u201eorganic\u201c are often ambiguous, strict requirements must be placed on the accuracy, unambiguity and clarity of advertising with environmental protection terms. In the case of an ambiguous statement, it must be clearly and unambiguously explained in the advertising itself which specific meaning is relevant in order to avoid misleading.<\/p>