Greenwashing Compliance: ASA Rulings From 2025 and What Businesses Must Prepare for in 2026

In 2025, the UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) stepped up its scrutiny of environmental claims made by carbon intensive industries, whose marketing plays a large role in shaping public understanding of the energy transition to net zero. It is also targeting sustainability more generally – for example, in the fashion world. These rulings show a purposeful shift towards requiring advertisers to provide full context, robust evidence and transparent explanations.

At the same time, enforcement powers have expanded. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) now has enhanced powers under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA) to issue fines of up to 10% of global turnover for breaches of consumer law. While these powers are not specific to green claims, environmental statements can be treated as a subset of misleading commercial practices when made inaccurately or without proper substantiation. The DMCCA additionally creates criminal liability for (amongst other things) unfair commercial practices which involve a misleading action and/or omission.

Adding to this, the new Failure to Prevent Fraud (FTPF) offence creates potential criminal liability where misleading sustainability claims are fraudulent.

The article will provide an overview of how environmental claims were scrutinised in 2025, what to expect in 2026, and practical steps to stay compliant.

Key ASA rulings and trends from 2025

ASA rulings: why context matters for high emitters

ASA rulings are formal decisions which the regulator issues after assessing whether an ad has breached the UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising and Direct & Promotional Marketing (CAP Code) and the UK Code of Broadcast Advertising (BCAP Code). Where a ruling is made the advertiser must take down or correct the ad. This can disrupt live campaigns, delay product launches and waste cost spent on advertisement and product launches. ASA rulings are published on their website and are often the subject of press comment, creating real reputational risks.

The ASA’s 2025 rulings outlined a clear principle that environmental claims can mislead if they lack essential context. This was evident in decisions involving TotalEnergies and Shell, where the regulator provided a clear distinction between ads that provided balanced context and those that misled by omission.

TotalEnergies published a social media ad promoting the business’s electricity start-up accelerator programme and the support they had offered to a company that designed wind and solar farms. The ASA believed that the ad indicated that the programme and support were representative of TotalEnergies overall activities when, in reality, a substantial proportion of its energy products were from fossil fuels. The ad was banned for omitting context on its significant fossil fuel operations and therefore failing to provide a balanced view.

On the other hand, Shell avoided an ad ban by presenting what the ASA considered to be a balanced view. They had visuals which showed both its wind and gas operations and included text which clearly stated the split of its capital expenditure that comprised oil and gas and lower-carbon initiatives. The ASA found that the visuals, voice-over and superimposed text had represented a balanced view of Shell’s overall activities.

These rulings each reflect the CAP Code’s requirement for claims to not mislead by omitting material information. For marketers in high-emitting sectors, this means that any ads spotlighting clean power initiatives must also acknowledge the scale of fossil fuel operations and other material impacts (i.e. water use or biodiversity risks) to avoid misleading by omission. In practice, this usually means referencing the proportion of overall operations or investment that remain fossil fuel based.

Stricter standards for proving green claims

In December 2025, the ASA banned paid-search ads by Nike, Lacoste and Superdry for making vague sustainability claims. In each case, the watchdog found the wording ambiguous and unsupported by evidence, concluding that the ads were likely to mislead consumers and were pulled from circulation. In each case:

• Nike had used the phrase “Sustainable Material” to advertise tennis polo shirts stating that it was intended to reflect the nature of products which had incorporated recycled materials. With Google’s character limits, Nike argued it could not add detail but the website contained further product information. The ASA disagreed, ruling that the wording was ambiguous and was likely to make consumers think that “all Nike tennis polo shirts, across their entire life cycle, would at the very least have no detrimental impact on the environment.” This ruling highlights the importance of clear qualifications being within the ad itself, even in constrained formats. Essential information must be present at the point of decision making, customers should not be merely redirected to another link.

Additionally, it worth noting that even where qualifying information is included (i.e. in the small print), the ASA will look at the overall impression of the ad. If the headline creates a message which is contradicts or overshadows the small print, the ad can still be found misleading as illustrated by the ruling on Floki Inu.

• Lacoste promoted its kids’ clothing on Google as “sustainable”. Lacoste stated that its claims were based on life cycle analysis conducted on its products in the kids collection which showed a reduction in the environmental footprint across all of the main life cycle stages for its SS25 kids collection as compared to its SS22 kids collection. When the ASA complained, Lacoste removed the ad and promised not to repeat it. Whilst Lacoste had shown an improvement in its carbon footprint, it offered no evidence that the products had no detrimental effect on the environment which would qualify the word “sustainable”. As such, the ASA welcomed Lacoste’s decision to remove the ad.
• Superdry stated within an ad the following phrase: “Sustainable style. Unlock a wardrobe that combines style and sustainability”. Superdry explained that the basis of this claim was that they manufactured, sourced and sold products across a range of category types that had sustainability attributes and credentials which were available on the relevant product pages. Superdry acknowledged that the full life cycle of its products was not publicly available and gave assurances that the ad had been removed.

These rulings each reflect the CAP Code’s requirement for the basis of claims to be clear, meaning:

• absolute claims will always require a high level of substantiation, whereas comparative claims such as “greener” can be justified in certain circumstances (i.e. the product provides a total environmental benefit over a previous product and the basis of comparison is clear); and
• environmental claims must be based on the full life cycle of the product, unless the ad itself explains a narrower scope. The ad should either present this clarification directly or clearly signpost where viewers can access fuller information. Consumers should not be misled about the product’s total environmental impact. In practice, marketers should be clear whether the claim relates to the production, transport, use, or disposal of the product and avoid implying a whole-life environmental benefit where only part of the process is “sustainable”.

It is clear that the ASA expects the basis of any green claim to be clear in the ad itself, meaning advertisers cannot rely solely on information held elsewhere online (i.e. social media pages or elsewhere on the website). As such, the ad must contain sufficient information and guide the viewer to where they can access more detailed information. This creates a challenge for marketers, especially when constrained with character limits. In practice, this means avoiding vague terms such as ‘green’ or ‘renewable’ unless you can both:

1. state the scope or limitation of any claim within the ad; and
2. hold objective documentary evidence that substantiates the claim (i.e. life cycle information, verified methodologies, third party assurances, etc).

If that level of explanation cannot be provided, organisations should be wary of making such claims and revise them with neutral wording to avoid enforcement risk.

AI-driven ad monitoring

Notably, these cases were flagged by the ASA’s Active Ad Monitoring system which uses AI to search for ads in breach of the rules. The ASA reported that they were on target to routinely scan 50 million ads a year by the end of 2025.

This use of AI means that even if a business is not reported by an individual, they may be caught so it is important to proactively audit and substantiate all environmental claims before publication.

Greenwashing compliance risks in 2026

Continued focus on high emitting sectors

Whilst the actions of the ASA in 2025 did not create a new precedent, they did reinforce the ASA’s continued approach to challenging environmental claims that present a misleading positive picture by omitting their wider negative environmental impacts. What the actions by the ASA in 2025 have demonstrated is that the ASA has a growing willingness to apply this approach more assertively, making clear that advertisers must present their overall environmental footprint. If marketers highlight positive environmental initiatives, they must therefore provide proportional context to avoid giving a misleading impression of their broader operations.

Absolute claims remain under scrutiny

Terms such as ‘green’, ‘clean’ and ‘sustainable’ continue to face heightened scrutiny because the ASA has reinforced (not relaxed) the need for clear and full life-cycle evidence or precise qualification. While regulatory expectations will remain the same, the combination of ongoing ASA scrutiny and the CMA’s expanded enforcement powers mean if any claim which is investigated and cannot be substantiated has a larger penalty risk. If the claim cannot be substantiated, it should not be published.

Net zero and carbon neutral language

In the ASA’s 2025 mid-year report they stated that they will continue to progress their Climate Change and Environment project, with proactive sweeps focused on carbon neutrality and net zero claims. For example, any reference to ‘net zero’ or ‘carbon neutral’ or energy-transition messaging will face heightened scrutiny.

Criminal exposure under FTPF offence

The FTPF offence came into force on 1 September 2025. Under this provision, businesses that meet the definition of a ‘large organisation’ may also be held criminally liable, and receive an unlimited fine, if an individual associated with the business (such as employees, contractors, or agents) commit fraud with the intention of benefitting the business, even if the business was unaware of this.

A business is considered ‘large’ if it meets two of the following three criteria:

• It has more than 250 employees.
• Its turnover exceeds £36 million.
• It has assets greater than £18 million.

If the business is part of a larger group, note that these thresholds apply to the group as a whole.

The FTPF offence incorporates several types of fraud:

• fraud by representation;
• fraud by failing to disclose information; and
• false or misleading statements made by directors.

As discussed earlier, engaging in an unfair commercial practice which involves a misleading action and/or omission can incur criminal liability under the DCCMA. Greenwashing itself is not a standalone criminal offence. However, misleading sustainability claims could, in some circumstances, provide the factual basis for the deception element of an underlying fraud offence.

The Home Office guidance illustrates this with an example of an investment fund promoting a “sustainable” timber company despite knowing its environmental credentials were fabricated. Investors would be deceived into placing funds. In that case, the base fraud would be fraud by false representation thereby there may be liability under this offence. Interestingly, it was noted that the offence would apply even if the investment was not secured, it was enough that the fraud was intended to benefit the fund provider.

This offence has changed the landscape. Misleading sustainability claims are no longer just an advertising issue, under the FTPF offence, they could trigger criminal exposure.

Practical impact for businesses:

• ASA/CMA actions remain front-line risks (ad takedowns, public censure, administrative fines). For businesses in high-emitting sectors, regulatory intervention is particularly relevant because advertising often revolves around renewables, hydrogen, carbon-neutral tariffs and emissions reductions which are all areas that are at high-risk for scrutiny.
• For large organisations, the FTPF offence adds potential criminal liability which could lead to unlimited fines and reputational damage if convicted. Misleading environmental statements used in sustainability-linked finance, PPAS or major tenders are some examples where environmental statements could help establish the deception element of an underlying fraud, exposing businesses to criminal liability. Importantly, if they rely on third parties to undertake the promotion of sustainability finance and/or other activities, the larger organisations would still be liable if they benefitted from the misleading statements.

Practical steps to avoid greenwashing risks

Conduct regular risk assessments

Regularly assess the environmental claims the business makes, the objective evidence the business holds about such claims and whether any claims could be interpreted as misleading when viewed against the wider environmental footprint of the business. One approach is to maintain a living “bank” of claims the business makes in advertising copy or creative, with approved language for use in footnotes or supers and a corresponding file of substantiation. This can help avoid last-minute scrambles for approvals. Ensure that a fraud prevention plan is in place which takes account of greenwashing risks.

Update policies and training

Ensure that both internal employees and external third party teams (i.e. marketers) receive adequate and up-to-date training so they understand how to make environmental claims responsibly and in line with regulatory expectations. In practice, this could be showing individuals how to use and maintain the living “bank” of claims as discussed above.

Avoid unsubstantiated claims

Assess the use of words such as ‘sustainable’ or ‘eco-friendly’ in marketing to ensure that the whole lifecycle of a product can be shown to have minimal/no impact on the environment. If this is not possible use qualified statements and explain the scope.

Include context

If you are highlighting green initiatives ensure that you include balancing information about the overall footprint and the proportion that the low-carbon activities represent. It is important to consider where this information is available. In accordance with CAP Code 3.3, material information must be provided in a clear way and where a consumer is likely to see it. It is noted that regard will be given to any time/space limitations resulting from the means of communication used and steps taken by the marketer to overcome these by providing the information by other means. The ASA has shown that they are willing to scrutinise marketers even where there is a character limit for the ad. Therefore, where space is constrained, claims should be either simplified to factual descriptions that do not overstate environmental impact, or avoided if they cannot be properly qualified within the ad.

Retain evidence

Keep certifications, supplier attestations, testing reports, etc so that you can evidence your environmental claims.

Check jurisdictional differences

If your ads run in other markets, check local greenwashing and advertising rules to avoid breaching overseas regulations.

Next steps

2025 reinforced that while the ASA’s regulation of environmental claims has not changed, their monitoring techniques have: the long-standing requirement for clarity, substantiation and context were enforced more firmly, supported by AI monitoring and even closer scrutiny of high-emitting sectors.

Looking ahead to 2026, businesses should expect this more proactive, evidence focused approach to continue, with particular attention on high-emitting sectors.

Importantly, the risk landscape has shifted. The CMA’s enhanced enforcement powers and the introduction of the FTPF offence means that misleading environmental statements can now create exposure well beyond advertising compliance. While greenwashing itself is not an offence, inaccurate or overstated environmental claims could contribute to the deception element of fraud. In this climate, ensuring that claims are accurate with properly qualification is essential risk management for businesses in 2026.

Review your green claims now to avoid ASA scrutiny in 2026 – contact our commercial team for tailored advice.