Co-authored by Natasha Tardif, Nicolas Walker, Camille Martin Saint-Léon, and Yasemin Cimen.

The regulatory environment in relation to sustainability claims in the fashion sector is increasingly complex, and market players are under heightened scrutiny by regulators. To limit the risks of allegations of unfair competition and misleading commercial practices – including both brand confusion and greenwashing – brands and retailers should adopt a transparent, evidence-based system that reflects the latest EU legal and ethical requirements. 

General recommendations include:

• Traceability and lawful sourcing: Demonstrate the lawful acquisition and traceability of products, materials, or accessories.
• Avoid confusion with third party IP: Ensure that commercial communication does not create ambiguity regarding origin, quality, or affiliation with other brands or fashion houses. References such as “inspired by,” logos, or visual similarities that could mislead consumers must be avoided unless an actual partnership exists.
• Clear, accurate, and proportional marketing messages: Claims about a product’s environmental merits should be clear, precise, and unambiguous. Avoid generic or sweeping expressions such as “eco-responsible,” “green,” “sustainable,” or “ethical.” Statements on environmental, social, or ethical responsibility must accurately reflect the reality of the actions taken and must not exaggerate their scope or benefits. For example, a single “green” initiative should not be presented as representative of the brand’s entire activity. 
• Evidence and substantiation: Tangible, precise, and verifiable documentation should always be available to substantiate claims – whether regarding sustainability, origin, or quality. This requirement will be reinforced by the upcoming EU directive on empowering consumers for the green transition, which will enter into force in 2026.

Today’s fashion market covers a huge diversity of primary, intermediate, and innovative segments, where fast fashion, the luxury sector, sustainable fashion, second-hand clothing, and circular practices such as upcycling and recycling cross-pollinate, collaborate, and coexist. This is a rapidly evolving market sector, driven by social, environmental, and technological developments, as well as by growing consumer awareness and engagement.

These new modes of consumption reflect a genuine shift in mindset: Ecological considerations strongly influence consumer choices. Fashion brands are seeking to respond to this demand by multiplying their sustainability commitments, investigating new modes of production and collaboration (upcycling, vintage product lines, etc.) and responsible collections. Nevertheless, the economic dimension remains central: For a large portion of consumers, the attractive prices of fast fashion brands outweigh environmental and social considerations.

These practices fit within an evolving regulatory framework, driven at the European level by the EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles and existing laws on competition and marketing claims. Against this backdrop, major legal risks may arise for fashion sector businesses, particularly when communication around sustainable initiatives is misleading, vague, or exaggerated, potentially constituting an unfair commercial practice toward consumers or other market players. 

What is an unfair commercial practice? 

Under EU law, a claim or statement aimed at promoting or presenting a product in a misleading or aggressive manner, thereby deceiving the consumer and influencing their behavior, is considered to be an unfair commercial practice within the meaning of Directive (EU) 2005/29 on Unfair Commercial Practices (the UCPD).

This may include advertising or information accompanying a product about:

• its composition;
• its qualities;
• its method of production; 
• its environmental impact; or
• the brand as a whole.

Unfair commercial practices can lead to severe penalties. For example, in France, such practices can be punished with criminal fines of up to €1.5 million for corporations, or fines of up to 10% of annual turnover, or up to 50% of advertising expenses related to the deceptive practice (with potential for this to be increased to 80% for misleading environmental claims). Sanctions can be made public to “name and shame” perpetrators. 

The UCPD covers an extensive list of practices considered unfair. However, in the fashion sector, two practices are particularly relevant: (i) product confusion and (ii) greenwashing.

Product confusion means clouding a consumer’s judgment in order to benefit from the image of another product or brand. In other words, a finding of confusing practices relies on ambiguity, doubt, or an artificial association with another good or service, brand, or trade name, or a distinctive sign.

In the fashion sector, this may take the form of marketing items that give the impression they originate from a luxury house or brand when they do not. For example, some sellers highlight names or visuals that could suggest a connection with a major brand, whereas the product is in fact only an imitation or an independent creation.

These practices can take various forms: using logos or typographies reminiscent of haute couture houses; ambiguous descriptions such as “inspired by” or “[brand name] style”; or pieces (e.g., clothes, bags, jewelry, shoes, accessories) that closely resemble creations of major brands without actually originating from them. Even if the resemblance is not perfect, the consumer may be led to believe, mistakenly, in a direct link with the luxury house concerned.

While these practices might be unfair competition and constitute IP infringement, they also qualify as a misleading commercial practice. The rule is clear: Market actors should never use another brand’s prestige or image ambiguously to promote their own product. Communication must be transparent and must not create confusion regarding the origin, quality, or affiliation of a garment or accessory.

If a company is a victim of this type of practice – i.e., another company creates confusion with its brand – the victim may file a complaint with the consumer protection authority of the EU Member State where the perpetrator is established and/or, if it is established in France, file a criminal complaint or bring an action for unfair competition before the commercial court.

Greenwashing is a form of misleading commercial practice that involves the unfair attribution of certain ecological qualities to a product, thereby creating a false appeal for consumers. Typically, it consists of a claim, statement, or presentation that misrepresents the environmental impact of a product or brand. 

Greenwashing is a major concern for the EU, which has recently adopted a directive amending the UCPD to combat unfair commercial practices, notably misleading environmental claims.

EU Directive 2024/825 empowering consumers for the green transition through better protection against unfair practices provides a new definition of an “environmental claim,” namely: any non-mandatory message or statement, in any form whatsoever, including an image, label, brand, or name, made in the context of commercial communication, which asserts or suggests that a product or a professional has a positive or neutral impact on the environment.

False, generic, or vague environmental claims are now included on the EU blacklist of “misleading commercial practices under all circumstances” under the UCPD, meaning it will no longer be necessary to prove that the claim actually misled the consumer. The mere use of a false or vague environmental claim will be sanctionable. For example, claims such as “environmentally friendly,” “eco-friendly product,” “green,” “nature’s friend,” “ecological,” or “climate friendly” will be prohibited. The new directive must be transposed into the laws of individual Member States by March 27, 2026, but many EU countries (e.g., France, the Netherlands, Italy) already apply restrictive bans on generic environmental claims.

Recent EU and UK cases 

France: In July 2025, the French Consumer Protection Authority (DGCCRF) fined Shein €40 million (through a criminal settlement) for misleading commercial practices after finding that the platform had misled customers about the discounts it offered and the brand’s environmental impact. In particular, the DGCCRF considered that Shein was unable to substantiate the environmental claims made on its website, in particular a message presenting itself as a responsible company that would limit its environmental impact by reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 25%. The DGCCRF had already imposed an administrative fine of over €1 million on Infinite Styles Ecommerce Limited, the operator of the Shein platform, because it considered that it failed to comply with legal obligations to provide information on the environmental qualities and characteristics of the textile products offered on the platform (under a French-specific rule covering certain textile products).

Italy: The Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) fined Infinite Styles Services Co. Ltd, the operator of Shein’s European website, €1 million for misleading environmental claims. The authority found that sections such as “#SHEINTHEKNOW,” “evoluSHEIN,” and “Social Responsibility” conveyed messages that were in some instances, vague, generic, and or overly emphatic, and in others, misleading or omissive – especially regarding product recyclability, circularity, and climate commitments. In particular, the “evoluSHEIN by Design” collection was presented as sustainable without sufficient evidence, despite representing only a marginal share of Shein’s overall offerings. The AGCM also criticized Shein’s climate pledges – such as cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by 2030 and reaching carbon neutrality by 2050 – as imprecise, especially given that the company’s emissions actually increased in 2023 and 2024.  

UK: In March 2024, the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) concluded its investigation into 17 major clothing brands, urging them to immediately revise their environmental claims that the CMA deemed too vague or misleading, particularly the labeling of certain items as “recycled” (when only a minimal portion of the product was actually composed of recycled materials). These three retailers made legally binding commitments to improve their marketing communications: specifying the exact percentage of recycled or organic materials, avoiding vague terms such as “sustainable” or “eco” without evidence, clearly defining the criteria for inclusion in a “green” range, refraining from using misleading symbols or imagery (such as leaves or green logos), and reporting regularly to the CMA on their compliance progress. In an open letter, the CMA urged the wider fashion retail sector to communicate genuine efforts to consumers transparently.