# Green claims, IP protection and emerging ESG rules
In 2023, a fast-fashion giant faced legal scrutiny in the Netherlands over its "Evolution" sustainability collection: regulators questioned whether vague labels like "eco-conscious" meant anything at all. That case became a template. By 2026, if you attach the word "green" to a garment sold in the EU, you had better be able to prove it, in writing, before the product ships.
This lesson covers two sides of the same coin: what you can legally claim about your clothes, and how you legally protect the clothes themselves.
Greenwashing means making an environmental claim that is misleading, unsubstantiated, or vague. Regulators used to tolerate it. They no longer do.
Two pieces of legislation define the terrain:
The Empowering Consumers Directive (EU 2024/825). Adopted in 2024, this amends existing consumer law and bans generic environmental claims (like "eco-friendly," "green," "climate neutral") unless you can demonstrate recognized, excellent environmental performance. It also bans sustainability labels that are not based on a certification scheme or set by public authorities. Member states must apply the rules from around September 2026.
The Green Claims Directive (proposed). This is the companion rule requiring companies to substantiate and get independent verification for explicit environmental claims *before* using them. As of early 2026 its final text and timeline remained under negotiation, so treat it as forthcoming, not law. Watch it closely.
The practical shift: the burden of proof moves to you, the seller. "Trust us, it's sustainable" is now a liability.
Say your brand wants to label a jacket "made from recycled ocean plastic."
Under the incoming regime you would typically need:
A claim like "100% sustainable" for a product with one recycled panel would fail. A claim like "outer shell made from 65% recycled polyester, certified by [named scheme]" is the kind of specific, verifiable statement regulators want.
The European Commission's page on green claims is a solid free starting point.
In the US, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the consumer-protection agency, enforces truth-in-advertising through its Green Guides. These guide how to avoid deceptive environmental marketing. The FTC has been reviewing and updating the Guides (a process ongoing into 2026). They are guidance rather than a standalone statute, but the FTC uses them to pursue deceptive-claim cases under its general authority.
Key US principles echo the EU: avoid unqualified terms like "eco-friendly," specify what part of the product a claim covers, and do not overstate recycled content.
The EU Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR), in force since 2024, will require a Digital Product Passport (DPP) for many product categories, textiles included. A DPP is a machine-readable record (often via QR code) holding data on materials, repairability, recycled content, and supply chain. Textile requirements are being phased in later this decade. Start collecting clean supplier data now, because a DPP is only as credible as the records behind it.
Knockoffs flood marketplaces within days of a runway show. Your legal defenses fall into a few distinct tools. Most brands confuse them, then discover the gap too late.
A trademark protects signs that identify commercial origin: brand names, logos, and sometimes distinctive features consumers associate with one source.
In the EU, you register with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) for protection across all member states. In the US, you register with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Trademarks can last indefinitely if renewed and used.
A design right protects the appearance of a product: its lines, contours, shape, texture, or ornamentation. This is the tool most relevant to a garment's *look*.
In the EU there are two flavors:
Note: EU design law was reformed in 2024 (the new Design Regulation), modernizing terminology and clarifying rules for the digital era. The "Community" designs are being renamed EU designs as the reform phases in.
In the US, garment shapes are hard to protect because clothing is often treated as "useful articles." Designers lean on design patents (protecting ornamental design, roughly 15 years) and on trade dress, but functional garment shapes generally cannot be patented.
Copyright protects original creative works. A distinctive textile print, an embroidered artwork, or a graphic on a t-shirt can be protected by copyright. The *cut* of a plain dress usually cannot. So your bold floral print is protectable; the A-line silhouette carrying it usually is not.
🎬 [VIDEO: "How Fashion Law Protects Designers" - youtube.com - an accessible overview of trademarks, design rights and copyright in the apparel industry]
Imagine a European brand launching a signature quilted handbag with a distinctive clasp and a monogram print.
Rough cost logic (illustrative estimate, verify current EUIPO fee schedules): one RCD filing runs on the order of a few hundred euros in official fees for a single design, cheaper than most people expect, and far cheaper than litigating a copycat with no registration in hand. Registering the flagship pieces is usually a rational spend.
Knowledge check
1. What is the most significant conceptual shift introduced by the incoming EU green-claims regime?
2. Under the Empowering Consumers Directive, why would a generic label like 'eco-friendly' typically be prohibited?
3. A brand cites the proposed Green Claims Directive as a binding legal requirement in a 2026 compliance memo. Why is this reasoning flawed?
4. Select ALL correct answers about what constitutes greenwashing as defined in the lesson.
Select all the correct answers.
5. Select ALL correct answers about substantiating a claim like 'made from recycled ocean plastic' under the incoming regime.
Select all the correct answers.
Beyond claims and IP, a wave of due-diligence law now makes brands responsible for what happens upstream.
The EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). Adopted in 2024, it requires large companies to identify, prevent, and address adverse human-rights and environmental impacts in their operations and value chains. It is being transposed by member states with a phased application later this decade, and its scope and timeline were under active revision (the "Omnibus" simplification debate) into 2026. For apparel, whose supply chains stretch across many countries and subcontractors, this is significant: forced labor, unsafe factories, and pollution upstream become the brand's documented responsibility.
EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR). Relevant to leather (cattle) and other commodities. It requires proof that goods are not linked to deforestation, with due-diligence statements. Application timing was adjusted, so confirm the current date before relying on it.
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for textiles. The EU is rolling out EPR schemes making producers financially responsible for textile waste. France already runs a textile EPR system. Expect fees tied to how recyclable and durable your products are.
The through-line across all three: documentation. Regulators increasingly ask not "is your product good?" but "can you *prove* it, with records, on demand?"