When ‘environmentally friendly’ claims meet reality in greenwashing lawsuits

Green isn’t always the color of sustainability. Sometimes, it’s just the color of a marketing spin.

In recent years, brands that once splashed “eco” across packaging and proudly boasted about their carbon offsetting are now facing fines, lawsuits, and public backlash. And while some of these cases grab international headlines, many more fly under the radar, quietly eroding consumer trust.

In this article, we’re diving into the most infamous greenwashing examples of the past five years. From fossil fuel giants to fast fashion empires, no industry is immune. 

Dig into this article to learn:

• What a greenwashing campaign really is (and how to spot one)
• The biggest greenwashing examples that sparked public and legal action
• Why greenwashing is more than a PR problem (it’s a regulatory and financial risk)

Join the *marketing as a force for good* Substack community for community talks, webinars, and movement updates.

What is a greenwashing campaign?

Let’s start with the basics: what is a greenwashing campaign, and why does it matter?

At its core, greenwashing misguides people and influences their decision-making by presenting false or misleading claims about a company’s sustainable products, initiatives, or services. It’s a form of marketing spin designed to appear environmentally friendly, without necessarily backing it up with meaningful action.

• It’s the shiny ad highlighting “net-zero” goals that aren’t measurable. 
• It’s the billboard of a fossil fuel company promising a greener future while expanding oil production. 
• It’s that suspiciously “eco” fashion line that turns out to be made of 95% plastic and 5% magical thinking.

But here’s the kicker: in today’s informed and regulation-heavy environment, ignorance is no longer an excuse. Whether intentional or accidental, greenwashing campaigns are being called out, fined, and (most importantly!) remembered.

In this YouTube video, Megan introduces greenwashing and breaks it down.

Greenwashing in 2025: added complexity

Once upon a time, greenwashing was fairly easy to spot. But in 2025, the landscape is more complex. A growing list of regulatory crackdowns, increasing public awareness, and creative PR spin have given rise to many shades of greenwashing (all of them harmful).

According to Planet Tracker, greenwashing campaigns can now be broken down into six key categories, each with its own flavor of misinformation. They are: 

1. Greencrowding: Brands align themselves with industry groups or coalitions that make vague collective sustainability promises, without any individual accountability.
2. Greenlighting: Companies spotlight one eco-friendly product or initiative while conveniently ignoring the rest of their operations.
3. Greenshifting: Brands shift the responsibility for environmental impact onto the consumer, suggesting it’s your fault for not recycling or making the “right” choice.
4. Greenlabelling: This form involves slapping vague or misleading terms without certification, evidence, or legal grounding.
5. Greenrinsing: This involves frequently changing sustainability targets before they can be measured or met. 
6. Greenhushing: Brands under-report or refuse to communicate sustainability information out of fear of backlash, legal exposure, or simply because they have little to report. 

As this 2024 research article in ScienceDirect puts it: “The diversity of greenwashing tactics requires nuanced detection frameworks and legal definitions to protect consumers and foster genuine sustainability.”

Understanding this complexity is a journey. Greenwashing is evolving, and so must we. It’s time to upskill, ask better questions, and critically examine the campaigns we create and consume.

What are the consequences of greenwashing?

From damaged reputations to mounting legal battles, the consequences of greenwashing have never been more real or more expensive. Let’s break down the three biggest risks companies face when they launch a greenwashing campaign (whether intentionally or not).

1. Damage to corporate reputation

According to KPMG’s 2024 report, 74% of executives said misleading sustainability claims significantly impacted brand trust in their sector. Once labelled as misleading, even unintentionally, brands can find themselves permanently associated with deception rather than sustainability.

2. Legal and regulatory risk

From the EU’s Green Claims Directive to national watchdogs cracking down on vague language, greenwashing is no longer a slap-on-the-wrist offence. It’s a compliance issue, and an expensive one at that.

And the legislation is only getting tougher. The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), the EU’s upcoming Directive on Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition, and consumer protection agencies worldwide are arming themselves with stricter definitions and enforcement tools.

3. Litigation

From class actions to investor suits, companies are being dragged into courtrooms for overstating or misstating their sustainability performance.

In some cases, legal action comes from environmental groups. In others, from shareholders. And in the most headline-grabbing examples, even governments have stepped in. As greenwashing examples multiply across sectors, so do the legal precedents.

What are the biggest examples of greenwashing?

Here are the biggest greenwashing examples of the last five years: the cases that garnered media attention, legal backlash, and hefty regulatory fines. 

1. FIFA – 2022 World Cup in Qatar

In a bold move that sparked global backlash, FIFA claimed the 2022 World Cup would be the first “fully carbon neutral” tournament. Independent analysts quickly debunked the math, especially around emissions from travel, infrastructure, and stadium construction.

• Date: 2022
• Fine: None (yet), but under investigation by Swiss regulators and complaints filed by NGOs, including Carbon Market Watch.
• Why greenwashing? FIFA heavily underreported emissions and over-relied on controversial carbon offsetting schemes.
• Outcome: Ongoing investigations and reputational damage. FIFA has since walked back its neutrality claims.

2. Shell – “Drive CO2 Neutral” Campaign

Shell’s ads encouraged consumers to “Drive CO2 neutral” by purchasing carbon offsets without disclosing the limited impact or flaws in offset systems.

• Date: 2021–2022
• Fine: No formal fine, but Netherlands’ Advertising Code Committee ruled the ad misleading
• Why greenwashing? Oversimplified climate claims; lacked transparency and real emission reductions
• Outcome: Shell was ordered to stop the campaign in the Netherlands and update its communications

3. Lufthansa – “Fly More Sustainably” Campaign

Lufthansa’s ads promised that flying with them was climate-friendly, citing offsetting programs and sustainable aviation fuel, which made up less than 1% of flights.

• Date: 2022
• Fine: Not disclosed; legal complaint filed by ClientEarth
• Why greenwashing? Misleading claims about carbon neutrality in air travel
• Outcome: UK ASA banned the ad; Lufthansa withdrew the campaign

4. Coca-Cola – “Sustainable Packaging” Claims

Coca-Cola ran global marketing that highlighted its commitment to sustainability, while being the world’s top plastic polluter for five consecutive years.

• Date: Ongoing, major backlash in 2021
• Fine: None, but legal threats and campaigns from multiple environmental NGOs
• Why greenwashing? Misleading focus on recyclability while continuing mass plastic production
• Outcome: Global criticism, protests, and investigations into misleading advertising

5. HSBC – “We’re planting trees” Ad Campaign

HSBC ran ads claiming it was helping the planet by financing green initiatives—without mentioning its simultaneous funding of fossil fuel expansion.

• Date: 2022
• Fine: Ads banned by the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA)
• Why greenwashing? Omission of major fossil fuel investments misled consumers
• Outcome: First financial institution ad banned for greenwashing in the UK

6. Deutsche Bank’s DWS – ESG Misrepresentation

Deutsche Bank’s asset management arm, DWS, was caught overstating the extent to which environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors influenced its investment decisions. Marketing claims like “ESG is part of our DNA” turned out to be more slogan than strategy.

• Date: April 2025 (Germany), September 2023 (U.S.)
• Fine: €25 million in Germany; $19 million settlement with the SEC
• Why was it considered greenwashing? DWS claimed ESG was embedded across portfolios, but internal audits and whistleblower reports revealed a mismatch between statements and actual practice.
• Outcome: Fines, global media backlash, a CEO resignation, and increased regulatory oversight

7. Keurig Canada – “Recyclable K-Cup” Claims

Keurig promoted its single-use coffee pods as recyclable, but many Canadian cities didn’t accept them, and the fine print on how to recycle was anything but user-friendly.

• Date: January 2022
• Fine: $3 million CAD (Canada); $10 million USD class-action settlement in the U.S.
• Why was it considered greenwashing? Misleading claims about recyclability despite limited municipal recycling capabilities and complex prep requirements.
• Outcome: Fines, mandatory changes to packaging, and public admissions of misleading advertising

8. ExxonMobil – Plastic Recycling Misrepresentation

ExxonMobil spent decades advertising plastics as widely recyclable—even as internal documents showed it knew this wasn’t true. A 2024 lawsuit filed by California’s Attorney General exposed the contradiction.

• Date: 2022–2024 (ongoing)
• Fine: Legal proceedings still in progress
• Why was it considered greenwashing? The company knowingly promoted misleading claims about the recyclability of plastics to deflect environmental responsibility.
• Outcome: Still under legal review; reputational damage and increased pressure on plastic producers

9. Volkswagen – Dieselgate Scandal

Volkswagen marketed its diesel vehicles as “clean” and environmentally friendly, when in reality, they were equipped with software that manipulated emissions tests.

• Date: 2015–2022
• Fine: Over €25 billion in global fines and settlements
• Why was it considered greenwashing? The company deliberately misled regulators and consumers by hiding true emissions data.
• Outcome: Massive fines, executive prosecutions, and a permanent dent in VW’s reputation

10. IKEA – “Greenest Store” and Illegal Logging

IKEA advertised several stores as “green” despite demolishing existing “eco-buildings” to construct them. In parallel, reports linked IKEA to illegal logging in Ukraine via questionable FSC-certified suppliers.

• Date: 2020–2023
• Fine: No formal fine, but ongoing NGO investigations and public backlash
• Why was it considered greenwashing? Contradictions between sustainability claims and operational practices, including sourcing wood from endangered forests.
• Outcome: Damaged public trust and increased scrutiny on FSC certification standards

From green claims to green accountability: what comes next?

Greenwashing is a reputational risk, a legal hazard, and a growing liability for businesses of all sizes, and the consequences are mounting.

From greenhushing to greenrinsing, the tactics are evolving, and so must our ability to identify and avoid them. Companies are paying the price (literally) for misleading sustainability claims.

And one misleading campaign can undo years of trust. In the age of conscious consumers, transparency is mandatory.

If your company is making green claims, now is the time to skill up before regulators, watchdogs, or consumers come knocking.

At Content for Good & Co., we help marketers and communicators build ethical, greenwash-free campaigns through expert resources and workshops. If you’re ready to ditch the spin and embrace substance, reach out to learn more about our “How Not to Greenwash” workshops tailored to your team or organization.

Let’s make “environmentally friendly” mean something again.