Greenwashing by Competitors in the Netherlands

Published on 13 February 2026 · Last updated 28 October 2026

If a competitor wins customers with a misleading sustainability claim, you can stop it under Dutch law. A public statement about goods or services that is misleading is unlawful towards other businesses, and the court can ban it and order a rectification (Articles 6:194 and 6:196 Dutch Civil Code). The competitor must then prove its claim is correct.

This page is for manufacturers, brand owners and distributors, in the Netherlands or abroad, that compete on the Dutch market with a business making green claims it cannot back up. It explains your legal grounds, the evidence you need, the order of steps from warning letter to summary proceedings, and the role of the ACM and the Advertising Code Committee. Want to act against a competitor’s claim? Ask our product regulation attorneys in the Netherlands to assess your case.

Can you take legal action against a competitor’s greenwashing?

Yes. Article 6:194 of the Dutch Civil Code makes a misleading public statement about goods or services unlawful towards any business, for example about their composition, characteristics or origin. You do not need a contract with the competitor, and the statement may be aimed at consumers.

Three grounds are usually combined. First, misleading advertising towards businesses (Article 6:194). Second, unlawful comparative advertising where your products are named or implied, which is only allowed if, among other conditions, it is not misleading and compares objectively (Article 6:194a). Third, the general tort rule, which covers conduct contrary to what is generally accepted in trade (Article 6:162). A breach of the consumer law ban on misleading green claims can support that argument, but those rules protect consumers, so a claim for your own loss must also meet the relativity requirement of Article 6:163.

Since 16 July 2026 the consumer rules contain a blacklist of green claims that are misleading in all circumstances, such as generic “eco-friendly” claims without proof and “climate neutral” claims based on offsetting (Article 6:193g, points ab to af). Our main page on greenwashing under Dutch law explains those bans in detail.

Who has to prove that the green claim is wrong?

Mostly the competitor. In a claim under Article 6:194 the advertiser that determined the content of the statement must prove that the facts in it are correct and complete; for comparative advertising it must produce that evidence quickly (Article 6:195(1) DCC).

You still need to show why the claim is misleading and how it affects you. A good file contains screenshots and copies of the claims with dates, the product or packaging concerned, publicly available data that contradict the claim, and an explanation of the overlap between the competitor’s customers and yours. A technical report from an independent test lab or consultant can help, but it is not a legal requirement.

What you need	Why it matters
Dated copies of every claim (web, packaging, social media)	Shows what was published, where and since when
The specific misleading element	Article 6:194 requires that the statement is misleading in one or more respects
Facts that contradict the claim	Makes it plausible that the competitor cannot discharge its burden of proof (Article 6:195)
Evidence of competition and loss	Needed for damages (Article 6:195(2)) and for urgency in summary proceedings

What are the steps against a greenwashing competitor?

The usual order is a warning letter, then summary proceedings if the competitor does not stop, and main proceedings if you also want damages. Parallel complaints to the Advertising Code Committee or a signal to the ACM can add pressure but do not replace a court order.

Warning letter (sommatie): set out which statements are misleading and why, demand that they stop and that a rectification is published, and set a short deadline. Many disputes end here.
Summary proceedings (kort geding): if the claims continue, the preliminary relief judge can order the competitor to stop, usually with a penalty for each breach. You need an urgent interest; a campaign that is running and taking customers usually provides it.
Rectification: the court can order the competitor to publish a rectification in a way the court determines (Article 6:196(1)).
Damages in main proceedings: the advertiser is liable for the loss caused, unless it proves that the breach is not its fault (Article 6:195(2)). You must show the loss and the causal link, which is often the hardest part.

Is a competitor’s claim costing you tenders or shelf space right now? Let a Dutch lawyer draft the warning letter; a well-documented first letter often settles the matter without court proceedings.

What can the ACM do about a competitor’s green claims?

The ACM supervises the consumer rules on unfair commercial practices and can impose fines and orders subject to a penalty (Articles 2.2 and 2.9 Consumer Protection Enforcement Act). You can report a competitor’s practice, but the ACM decides itself whether to investigate, and it does not award you damages.

For blacklisted green claims the ACM’s maximum fine is EUR 900,000 or 10% of turnover, whichever is higher (Article 2.15(2) Whc). The prospect of an ACM investigation can make a competitor more willing to settle, but the civil route is the only way to obtain a court order or compensation for your business.

Can the Advertising Code Committee help?

Yes, as a quick and low-cost extra route. The Advertising Code Committee (Reclame Code Commissie) assesses complaints against the Dutch Advertising Code and can recommend that an advertisement is withdrawn. Its decisions are not court judgments and cannot be enforced, and it does not award damages.

A ruling from the committee can still be useful evidence in a later court case, and many advertisers adjust their claims after a negative ruling. Use it when speed and publicity matter more than enforceability, or in parallel with a warning letter.

How quickly should you act against a competitor?

As soon as you have documented the claims. Summary proceedings require urgency, and waiting months while a campaign runs can lead the court to doubt that urgency. The longer the claim runs, the more customers it may take from you.

Start by preserving the evidence, because websites and social media posts change. Then decide within weeks whether to send a warning letter. If the claim also appears in other EU countries, check whether parallel action is needed there; a Dutch judgment primarily concerns the Dutch market.

How do you make sure your own claims are not attacked back?

Check your own marketing first. A competitor that receives a warning letter will often look at your claims, and under Article 6:195 you would carry the same burden of proof. A clean house strengthens your position and your credibility in court.

Apply the same test to your own claims as to theirs: no generic environmental claims without proof, no neutrality claims based on offsetting, no self-made sustainability labels, and a published plan behind any future target (Articles 6:193c(2)(d) and 6:193g). The broader rules are on our page on greenwashing under Dutch law; for corporate reporting, see legal advice on ESG in the Netherlands.

Practical example: two cleaning product brands

Suppose a Belgian manufacturer of cleaning products sells in Dutch supermarkets. A competitor launches a range labelled “100% climate neutral” with its own green leaf logo, and two retail chains ask the Belgian manufacturer why its products are not “neutral”.

The manufacturer documents the packaging and website claims and notes that the neutrality claim relies on offsetting, which has been blacklisted since 16 July 2026 (Article 6:193g(ae)), and that the logo is not based on a certification scheme (point ab). Its lawyer sends a warning letter demanding withdrawal and a rectification to the two retail chains. When the competitor does not respond, the manufacturer starts summary proceedings and asks for an order with a penalty and a rectification under Article 6:196.

When do you need a Dutch lawyer against a greenwashing competitor?

When a competitor’s claim is costing you customers and you want it stopped quickly, when you want compensation, or when the competitor answers your complaint with an attack on your own claims.

MAAK Advocaten in Amsterdam acts for manufacturers, brand owners and distributors in disputes over misleading advertising: we assess the evidence, draft the warning letter, conduct summary proceedings and main proceedings in first instance and on appeal, and coordinate complaints to the Advertising Code Committee. Speak to a product regulation attorney in the Netherlands.

Frequently asked questions about greenwashing by competitors

Can I sue a competitor in the Netherlands for false green claims?

Yes. A misleading public statement about goods or services is unlawful towards other businesses (Article 6:194 Dutch Civil Code). The court can ban the statement and order a rectification (Article 6:196).

Do I have to prove that the competitor’s claim is false?

You must show why the claim is misleading, but the advertiser must prove that the facts in its statement are correct and complete (Article 6:195(1) DCC).

Can I claim damages from a greenwashing competitor?

Yes, if you prove your loss and the causal link. The advertiser is liable unless it proves that the breach is not its fault (Article 6:195(2) DCC).

Will the ACM act on my complaint?

The ACM decides itself whether to investigate. It can fine up to EUR 900,000 or 10% of turnover for blacklisted practices (Article 2.15(2) Whc), but it does not award damages to competitors.

Is a ruling of the Advertising Code Committee binding?

No. It is a self-regulatory recommendation that cannot be enforced, but it can support a later court case and often leads advertisers to change their claims.

Primary sources

Dutch statutes are only officially available in Dutch, on wetten.overheid.nl. Judgments can be found on rechtspraak.nl by their ECLI number. Legal position checked on 28 October 2026.