Hungarian competition authority closes greenwashing trilogy on PET bottles: a warning shot ahead of the EU's Empowering Consumers Directive

In each case, the HCA found no formal infringement, but only because the companies offered substantial packages of commitments, which the HCA subsequently accepted and made binding. The pattern across all three decisions is instructive:

• Objective truth was not enough. Coca-Cola's bottles, caps and labels were technically 100 % recyclable, but the HCA was concerned that highlighting this single positive trait without addressing the product's broader environmental burden, combined with the fact that actual PET recycling rates in Hungary fell far short of 100 %, could make the product appear "greener" than it really was. Similarly, Fonte Viva/MOL had genuinely used 100 % recycled PET for the bottle body (excluding the cap and label), but the HCA was concerned that consumers could believe the entire bottle – cap and label included – was made of recycled material. Although Szentkirályi's "25 % recycled bottle" claim was not unlawful in itself, as the company proved that its bottles were made of at least 25 % recycled content, the broader communications on its website risked creating the impression that using PET raw materials has no adverse environmental impact.
• Remedies go well beyond the specific claim. All three companies committed to market-wide consumer-education and awareness campaigns. Coca-Cola further committed to stop using the "100 % recyclable" claim in relation to Naturaqua products for a defined period. Fonte Viva/MOL committed to revising internal commercial and communication processes, appointing a dedicated compliance expert and adopting a detailed internal compliance policy covering environmental claims. Szentkirályi committed to a new internal compliance program aligned with the HCA's green-marketing guidance as well as staff training and quarterly public disclosure of the actual return rate of its PET bottles under the deposit-return system.

The HCA has focused intensively on "green claims" in recent years. It published a market study that found that green advertising messages are frequently unclear or confusing and that a significant percentage of consumers do not understand the precise meaning of specific claims and labels. The HCA also issued a Green Marketing Guide to help companies stay on the right side of the law with their marketing communications.

The next enforcement wave: implementing the EmpCo Directive

Further enforcement related to green claims is expected with the transposition of EU Directive 2024/825 on empowering consumers for the green transition (the "EmpCo Directive"). Three changes deserve particular attention:

1. A broad, form-neutral definition of an "environmental claim". The new definition encompasses any non-mandatory message or representation in any form – including implied claims – that a product, brand or undertaking has a positive environmental effect, has no environmental impact, causes less environmental harm than its competitors or improves environmental performance over time, and this concept also extends to visual and symbolic representations, not just text.

2. New automatically unlawful ("blacklisted") practices, meaning that the authority will not need to prove actual capacity to mislead consumers:

• displaying a sustainability label not based on a certification scheme or not established by a public authority;
• making a generic environmental claim without demonstrable, recognised excellent environmental performance; and
• making an environmental claim about an entire product or an undertaking's business as a whole when it actually relates only to one specific aspect or operation – this is precisely the fact pattern that the HCA probed in the PET bottle cases (i.e. a single verified attribute extrapolated to the whole product).

3. Strict conditions on forward-looking claims. Any claim about future environmental performance will be unlawful unless it is supported by clear, objective, publicly available and verifiable commitments set out in a detailed and realistic implementation plan with measurable, time-bound targets, backed by resources and regularly verified by an independent third party whose findings are made public.

The new provisions in Hungary will apply to products manufactured after 27 September 2026, and we expect related communication practices to be closely scrutinised by the HCA immediately thereafter.

What do we recommend?

Companies making environmental or sustainability claims – be they explicit or implicit, in text, images, icons or QR-linked landing pages – should treat the PET-bottle proceedings as the precursor to a stricter enforcement wave once the EmpCo transposition takes effect. We thus recommend:

• auditing both explicit and implicit green claims (colours, images, icons, packaging design) against the HCA's Green Marketing Guide, not just the literal text;
• ensuring that green claims do not extend beyond their actual scope. Where a substantiated environmental measure covers only part of a product (e.g. packaging material) or one business activity, ensure that the communication does not suggest through the visuals or context supplied that it covers the whole product or company; this will become a per se violation from 27 September 2026 onwards; and
• reviewing all forward-looking sustainability commitments already now, since they will require a public, verifiable implementation plan with measurable targets and independent third-party verification or, in the absence of those, should not be made at all.

Non-compliance may leave companies facing fines of up to 13 % of their group revenues generated worldwide in the last closed financial year prior to the HCA’s decision. And, as the HCA's practice in this area becomes more established, it will become increasingly difficult to avoid the fines by making commitments; the HCA is more likely to establish the infringement and impose fines to deter companies from engaging in similar practices.