Poland’s Council of Ministers has adopted a draft amendment to the Act on Counteracting Unfair Market Practices and the Consumer Rights Act. Behind the seemingly technical and bureaucratic title lies one of the most eagerly awaited changes to consumer law in recent years: companies will no longer be able to place terms such as “eco” on their packaging without evidence to support them.
Businesses have just over two months to prepare, as the new rules are expected to take effect on 27 September 2026, warns Natalia Stanowska-Potoczny, legal counsel at the law firm Causa Finita Szczepanek i Wspólnicy.
Green slogans versus reality
An increasing number of businesses are using environmental claims in their marketing communications to attract consumers. The problem is that these claims are not always true. Some constitute classic greenwashing: creating a false or excessively positive impression that a product, service or company is environmentally friendly, even though the claims are unsupported by reality or are misleading.
When consumers see terms such as “eco” or “climate-neutral”, they are often willing to pay more because they believe they are making a responsible choice. When that belief is built on false premises, the result is genuine consumer harm rather than merely a reputational offence.
This is not a theoretical problem. Poland’s Office of Competition and Consumer Protection, known as UOKiK, has for some time been examining the advertising claims used by major, recognisable brands.
Greenwashing allegations have already been brought against Bolt over claims concerning zero-emission journeys and Zara in connection with its “Join Life” campaign. Allegations have also been made against Allegro, InPost, DHL and DPD regarding statements about the lower carbon footprint of deliveries or tree-planting initiatives. Tchibo has also faced accusations.
This demonstrates the scale of the problem and explains why the government has decided to introduce stricter enforcement tools.
Why the urgency? Brussels imposed a deadline
The legislative work is not solely a Polish initiative. It is primarily the result of the need to implement an EU directive adopted in 2024 — Directive 2024/825, which amended the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and the Consumer Rights Directive.
The legislation is commonly referred to as the Greenwashing Directive or the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive.
EU member states must implement it by 27 September 2026. This deadline has therefore also been set as the date on which the Polish legislation is expected to enter into force.
From the perspective of the Polish legal system, the work on the bill should be viewed positively for two reasons.
First, implementing the EU directive is an obligation imposed on every member state. Adopting the amendment is therefore not merely desirable but legally necessary.
Second, the proposal responds to a genuine problem in the modern marketplace: the growing number of “green” declarations that do not always withstand scrutiny.
It should also be emphasised that the existing rules were not entirely ineffective. They already protected consumers against misleading advertising. However, they did not explicitly address many newer forms of marketing communication connected with environmental protection.
The amendment is intended to change this by expanding both the list of business activities that may be regarded as misleading and the list of practices that will be considered unfair under all circumstances.
Twelve new prohibited practices
The draft introduces a total of 12 new practices that will be classified as unfair. These include:
- displaying a sustainability label that is not based on an approved certification scheme or established by a public authority;
- making an environmental claim about an entire product or a company’s entire business when the claim actually concerns only a specific feature of the product or a particular area of activity;
- claiming, on the basis of greenhouse gas emission offsetting, that a product has a neutral, reduced or positive environmental impact in terms of emissions;
- presenting legal requirements that apply to all products in a particular category as a distinctive feature of one company’s offer;
- presenting a product as repairable when it does not, in fact, have that characteristic.
In other words, general claims such as “environmentally friendly” or “eco-friendly” will no longer be permitted unless they can be supported by solid, verifiable evidence.
A company wishing to promote a product as environmentally friendly will have to demonstrate recognised, high environmental performance, for example by referring to the EU Ecolabel scheme or standards such as ISO 14024.
The regulations may apply not only to the wording of advertisements but also to branding, product names, colours and graphic symbols that suggest a company or product is “green”.
The devil is in the definitions
This does not mean, however, that the proposed amendment is free from flaws.
Businesses have pointed out that some of the new terms may create uncertainty about how the rules should be interpreted.
One example is the definition of a “sustainability label”. The draft prohibits the use of labels that are not based on a certification scheme or established by a public authority.
This raises questions about which symbols, claims and graphics should be regarded as labels and whether the definition covers only graphic marks or also marketing slogans.
Similar uncertainty surrounds the concept of a “certification scheme”. The draft refers to such schemes but does not define them in detail. It therefore remains unclear what degree of independence will be required from a certification body.
UOKiK will consequently need to prepare clear guidelines explaining how the new rules should be applied in practice.
Compliance with the new information requirements may also increase the cost of documenting environmental claims used in advertisements and product labelling.
Dispute over existing stock and the transition period
The cost and practical implementation of the new rules have become the main areas of dispute between UOKiK and the business community in recent months.
A coalition of several dozen business organisations — including the Lewiatan Confederation, the Polish Chamber of Commerce, the Union of Entrepreneurs and Employers, breweries and food producers — has called for a transition period.
In its current form, the draft does not contain a grandfathering clause for products placed on the market before 27 September 2026 but remaining in circulation after that date.
In practice, this could require companies to replace packaging, apply additional labels or even withdraw existing stock. The fast-moving consumer goods and food industries have warned that this could lead to significant food waste.
The European Commission estimates that the cost of such remedial measures would amount to approximately €40 per company annually. The organisations supporting the appeal argue that this figure is significantly underestimated.
UOKiK has so far maintained that the 27 September 2026 deadline cannot be extended because it follows directly from an EU directive based on maximum harmonisation.
Despite these concerns, the benefits of adopting the legislation appear to outweigh the potential difficulties.
The amendment is necessary to fulfil Poland’s obligation to implement EU law. At the same time, it will genuinely strengthen consumer protection and should reduce the prevalence of greenwashing.
It is also worth noting something that is by no means guaranteed in Polish legislative practice: the proposal does not introduce regulations extending beyond the scope of the EU directive itself.
Fines of up to 10% of turnover already apply
Importantly, the draft does not introduce any new penalties, as the relevant sanctions already exist.
At present, however, UOKiK must impose them under general provisions concerning unfair market practices. In practice, this can make it more difficult to pursue every company using false or misleading environmental claims.
The amendment will give the President of UOKiK an explicit legal basis for penalising greenwashing as a specific prohibited practice.
The consumer protection mechanism will continue to operate on two levels.
First, any consumer who has been affected by an unfair practice may pursue individual claims against the business responsible. They may, for example, demand that the consequences of the practice be remedied, seek a price reduction or even request that the contract be declared invalid.
Second, UOKiK protects the collective interests of consumers. When it identifies unfair practices, it may initiate administrative proceedings, prohibit the continued use of those practices and impose a financial penalty.
As a general rule, the penalty may not exceed 10% of the company’s turnover in the year preceding the year in which the fine is imposed.
This represents a significant financial risk, particularly for major, recognisable brands. A mistake in an environmental marketing campaign can now cost substantially more than it did only a few years ago.
The overall balance: greater transparency, but more obligations
The anti-greenwashing legislation is one of those proposals that cannot easily be assessed in entirely positive or negative terms.
From the consumer’s perspective, it is undoubtedly a step in the right direction. It will bring order to the confusion surrounding environmental claims and give the regulator stronger tools in areas where it currently has to rely on general legal provisions.
From the business perspective, however, it also introduces a new set of regulatory risks. These will be particularly significant for industries that make extensive use of environmental messaging, including the food, cosmetics, e-commerce and broader retail sectors.
Companies that are currently unable to substantiate their “eco” claims should begin reviewing their marketing materials immediately rather than waiting until September.
Source: ManagerPlus.pl
