1. Causes of Action

I  Australia

Australia's consumer protection framework, governed by the Corporations Act 2001  and the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) , is increasingly utilised for climate litigation. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) actively addresses greenwashing, with recent investigations revealing concerning claims by businesses. Examples include (ACCC v Volkswagen and ongoing litigation in the case of Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility v Santos Ltd), based on the Corporations Act and ACL. Greenwashing claims extend to the banking sector, as seen in the case of Abrahams v CBA (No 2). Legal interventions beyond courtrooms involve complaints to Ad Standards and ACMA findings against companies like Ampol, PCWC & Others vs. Glencore, and HSBC.  Additionally, the case against Mitsubishi Motors v Begovic  for deceptive fuel efficiency claims and AGL Energy's proceedings against Greenpeace in AGL Energy Limited v Greenpeace Australia Pacific Limited) for alleged breaches of intellectual property reinforce the potential for consumer protection laws to enhance climate and environmental litigation. These cases and interventions demonstrate the potential of existing provisions to enhance climate and environmental litigation against corporations in Australia.

II  Brazil

The Brazilian Consumer Protection Code (CDC) (Law 8078/1990) provides legal avenues for consumers to bring cases against companies for violating rights. As per the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice binding rule, approved on 24 October 2018, Súmula 618 states that: "The shift of the burden of proof applies to actions of environmental degradation". This applies the provision of Article 6, VIII, of the Brazilian Consumer Code (Law 8078/1990) to all civil lawsuits involving environmental damage. Defendants should bear the burden of proving that either (a) there is no harm or (b) they are not (directly or indirectly) responsible for the damage.  Specific remedies include product recalls, corrective advertising, and the potential suspension or revocation of licenses for repeated violations. The concept of piercing the corporate veil allows legal action if a company's actions harm consumers. In the context of environmental concerns, the CDC has been applied in cases like Federal Public Prosecutors v. Bunge Alimentos, where the court affirmed consumers' right to clear information regarding GMO content in food products. This underscores the potential for environmental litigation, enabling consumers to seek remedies against companies for inadequate disclosure of environmental impacts or failure to adhere to regulations such as the Environmental Impact Study. 

III  Canada

Although Canada has not seen any environmental or climate case brought based on consumer laws, the Federal Consumer Protection Legislation  has provisions under which consumers can potentially bring cases for negligence, misrepresentation, and/or fraud. In the case of Quenneville v Volkswagen Group Canada Inc, [2018] OJ No 2117, a consumer class action was brought on the basis of negligence design and negligent misrepresentation that the vehicles were environmentally friendly. Moreover, consumer protection laws, enforced by the federal Competition Act, can be invoked against corporations for providing unsafe products or misleading consumers. The Motor Vehicle Safety Act and Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations also establish standards for vehicles for their safety and emissions requirements. These provisions offer a potential legal basis for consumers to bring cases against companies, especially in the context of environmental concerns. They may be liable for misrepresentation and failure to meet safety and emissions standards. This creates potential avenues for climate and environmental litigation in Canada.

IV  China

Article 58 of the Civil Procedure Law empowers designated institutions to take legal action in People's Court against activities harming the public interest, including environmental pollution and violations of consumer rights. The People's Procuratorate can also initiate legal proceedings if they uncover such misconduct during their official duties, especially related to ecological damage and consumer rights in food and drug safety. This framework potentially allows consumers to bring cases against companies for violations, with support from the People's Procuratorate, if designated institutions do not take legal action.

V  France

In the case of Les Amis de la Terre v. Total, alleging its 2021 advertising campaign misled consumers about environmental commitments. Based on the French Consumer Code and Environment Code, the action seeks injunctions, publication of the decision, moral damages compensation, and legal fee reimbursement. Despite Total's dismissal attempts, the Paris court granted standing to Greenpeace France, Les Amis de la Terre France, and Notre Affaire à Tous. This action was brought under articles L. 121-1 et seq. of the French Consumer Code, which prohibits misleading and deceptive commercial practices (which implemented 2005/29/EU Unfair Commercial Practices Directive), article 1240 of the French Civil Code, and under Article L. 142-2 of the Environment Code which governs standing to sue. Therefore, based on French law, EU legislation, and the Total Energies case, for a suit to succeed on consumer laws requires proving (i) that environmental claims are commercial practices; (ii) that Total's environmental claims are of a commercial nature; (iii) that they are misleading, and (iv) that they have altered the economic behaviour of consumers.

VI  Germany

In Germany, actions against greenwashing, led by NGOs like Deutsche Umwelthilfe, have brought action based on consumer law using the Act Against Unfair Competition (UWG). Action companies like FC Köln GmbH & Co. KGaA, TotalEnergies Wärme & Kraftstoff Deutschland GmbH, and dm-drogerie markt GmbH + Co. KG have been brought forward. Section 3 of UWG prohibits unfair business-to-consumer practices, with Section 5(1) deeming misleading consumers as unfair. Misleading practices include providing false information about essential product characteristics or withholding necessary information for informed commercial decisions. In section 5(1) of the Act, terms such as "environmentally friendly" or "eco-friendly" are undefined and unregulated by law. Thus, statements using these terms have an increased potential to mislead. Blanket statements such as "carbon-dioxide-reduced" or "climate-friendly product," lacking clarity on the specific aspect of production contributing to "climate friendliness," are also deemed misleading under Section 5(1) no. 1 UWG. This was applied in the case of Deutsche Umwelthilfe v. TotalEnergies Wärme & Kraftstoff Deutschland GmbH by the regional court of Dusseldorf, where the court did not allow advertisements claiming "climate neutrality" and held that claims of climate neutrality were misleading. Moreover, under Section 5a(2) no. 1 UWG, consumers expect a balanced carbon footprint if a company claims climate neutrality for its product, not solely relying on purchased carbon dioxide certificates without actual reduction efforts. Failure to clarify the contribution of compensation measures to advertised climate neutrality may be deemed an unfair commercial practice. This strengthens the basis for consumers to bring cases based on consumer laws.

VII  India

India has not seen any climate or environmental litigation based on consumer legislation or policy. However, the Energy Conservation Act of 2001  empowers consumers by establishing the Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) and introducing measures like energy standards and labelling. Consumers could potentially bring cases against companies for violating energy consumption norms, neglecting energy audits, or failing to implement energy-saving measures. The certification of energy auditors and managers further strengthens consumers' position to hold companies accountable for their energy performance.

VIII  Italy

In Italy, the Civil Code provides extensive protection based on the neminem laedere principle, covering various interests, including pecuniary, fundamental, informational, and consumer rights. Notably, cases related to 'greenwashing' practices, such as Dieselgate case, highlight violations of the Consumer Code (Legislative Decree 206/2005, amended by Law No 31/2019). The Consumer Code defines unfair commercial practices as those contrary to professional diligence and capable of distorting the economic behaviour of the average consumer. Misleading practices, outlined in Arts. 21, 22, and 23 encompass false information, misleading omissions, and deceptive practices. Art. 140-bis introduces class action, enabling consumers to collectively seek damages for shared grievances, providing a significant perspective for bringing consumer cases to advance climate litigation and combat deceptive environmental claims.

IX  Japan

In Japan, consumer protection laws allow certified consumer organisations to seek injunctions against illegal acts by business operators and claim damages for victims. While Japan has seen cases involving fraudulent misrepresentation and civil conspiracy in consumer litigation, such legal strategies have not been applied to climate law thus far. 

X  Kenya

Kenya has not seen environmental or climate litigation based on consumer rights. However, a petitioner may invoke infringement of substantive rights secured under Article 46 of the Constitution, such as consumer rights. Article 46 of the Constitution guarantees protection of the rights of consumers against any violation of consumer rights from public as well as private entities.

XI  Netherlands

In the Netherlands, consumer protection laws offer robust frameworks to address climate-related concerns, particularly regarding deceptive practices like greenwashing. These legal avenues provide mechanisms for consumers and advocacy groups to hold corporations accountable for their environmental claims. The European Directive on Unfair Commercial Practices, integrated into Dutch law (articles 6:139a - 6:139j Civil Code), is a key tool against greenwashing. The case of FossielvrijNL v. KLM, demonstrates its application. This legal avenue empowers consumers to challenge false sustainability assertions, such as those made in KLM's "Fly Responsibly" campaign, creating a pathway for legal action against companies engaging in deceptive practices. Article 6:228 Civil Code also provides a legal basis for consumers to challenge misrepresentations in contractual relationships. In cases where corporations make false or misleading statements about the sustainability of their products or services, consumers can invoke misrepresentation provisions. This is particularly relevant in contractual relationships between corporations and non-consumers, where consumers benefit from favourable burden-of-proof rules. Article 7:17 Civil Code establishes that a good must conform to the contract, including statements made by the seller about its properties. Sustainability aspects of a product are considered potential "properties." If a product is presented as sustainable but fails to meet this claim, consumers may argue non-conformity, asserting that the product did not meet the agreed-upon terms.

These legal mechanisms empower consumers and NGOs to challenge companies on climate-related issues, fostering accountability and potentially leading to litigation that strengthens environmental standards. The ongoing evolution of case law and legal interpretations will likely further shape the effectiveness of these provisions in enhancing climate and environmental litigation in the Netherlands 

XII  Nigeria

Consumer protection laws have not been the basis, and arguably does not constitute a viable ground for climate litigation in Nigeria. 

XIII  Norway

In Norway, the Act on Control of Products and Consumer Services, along with the Labelling of Consumer Goods Act, establishes a comprehensive framework for regulating products to prevent harm to health and the environment. Section 3 of the Act provides for a duty of care which imposes a duty of care on those involved in the production, import, placement on the market, processing, use, or handling of products. Non-compliance can result in criminal liability. Sections 9 and 10 include the right to information wherein consumers have the right to information from public authorities, producers, importers, sellers, or users of products. This facilitates transparency regarding the environmental impact and safety of products. Under section 12, in case of non-compliance, the wrongdoer is criminally liable.

Additionally, there is potential to bring consumer cases based on the type of contract. Chapter 4, on Special Provisions for Consumer Contracts, outlines information requirements for traders entering into agreements with consumers. This includes providing clear information on the essential characteristics of the product, the trader's identity, total costs, payment arrangements, delivery, complaint handling, legal obligations, and agreement duration. Although not explicitly labelled as "green termination clauses," consumer contracts under Section 38(b) require clear information on the conditions for terminating the agreement (see the Section on contractual obligations).

Moreover, the Nordic Ecolabelling System (Swan), the Consumer Authority, oversees the Swan Ecolabel system, providing guidance on sustainability claims. Producers meeting the criteria can use the label, fostering eco-friendly practices.

These legal provisions offer a foundation for consumers and authorities to take legal action against companies engaging in deceptive practices for climate or environmental litigation in Norway. The need for information disclosure, and the established eco-labelling systems, enhances the potential for holding companies accountable for their environmental claims.

XIV  Philippines

The Consumer Act of the Philippines, coupled with eco-labelling and packaging provisions in the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act, provides a basis for legal action against companies violating environmental commitments. Consumers can bring action for the violation of these provisions that infringe on their consumer rights. Corporations can be held liable for the manufacture, sale, or importation of adulterated or mislabelled products, especially those using non-environmentally acceptable packaging materials. Additionally, the strict liability rule, i.e. Article 2178 of the Civil Code, allows consumers to seek recourse for injuries caused by harmful substances in products, irrespective of any contractual relationship, potentially leading to legal action against companies. However, cases instituted for violating the civil code fall under the ambit of quasi-delict tort and are adjudicated accordingly.

XV  Poland

In Poland, cases that invoke the protection of the rights of consumers are brought on torts, more particularly under failure to warn and product liability. (see section on tort laws for more information). Besides tort laws, legal avenues within consumer protection and competition laws can potentially be harnessed for climate and environmental litigation against companies engaging in greenwashing practices. The Competition and Consumer Protection Act empowers the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (OCCP) to fine businesses for practices infringing on collective consumer interests. Greenwashing, violating the Combatting Unfair Market Practices Act, can lead to fines up to 10% of the preceding year's turnover. The OCCP has imposed fines for greenwashing, emphasising the potential for legal action against deceptive environmental claims. Moreover, The Ethical Advertisement Code prohibits advertisements containing ecological information that violates public trust in legitimate environmental protection actions. Recent amendments address greenwashing concerns, specifying that general phrases like 'environmentally friendly' cannot be misleading. Advertisements creating the impression of environmental benefits without substantial proof can be deemed misleading. These legal provisions collectively offer a foundation for consumers, authorities, and advocacy groups to pursue legal action against companies engaging in deceptive environmental practices in Poland.

XVI  United Kingdom

In the UK, consumer protection laws, specifically the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTR) and Consumer Rights Act, and torts such as fraudulent misrepresentation and product liability. These provisions provide potential avenues for climate and environmental litigation against companies engaged in greenwashing. The CPUTR prohibits misleading actions or information presentation that deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer, leading to a transaction they would not have otherwise made. This includes misleading omissions. Breaches can lead to criminal and civil enforcement, including fines or imprisonment. Additionally, amendments to CPUTR grant consumers the right to civil enforcement if a trader engages in prohibited practices. Remedies include the right to unwind, a discount, or damages. Consumers can pursue these remedies through civil courts, enhancing their ability to seek compensation for deceptive environmental claims. The Consumer Rights Act provides additional protection, specifying that goods must comply with their description and be satisfactory. Non-compliance may offer a route to compensation for consumers, strengthening their position in climate-related litigation.

Through regulatory intervention of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), vendors are prosecuted for non-compliance with advertising codes. Recent rulings against companies like Shell and HSBC for misleading environmental claims demonstrate the potential for regulatory bodies to challenge greenwashing. The anticipated FCA rules (bill pending?) on greenwashing, expected in 2024, are poised to further regulate deceptive environmental claims. The Financial Conduct Authority's initiative aligns with the growing focus on addressing misleading narratives around climate contributions.

As for cases under torts, Crossley v Volkswagen, indicates that legal action, including claims for fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and violations of consumer legislation, can be initiated against companies. Such legal provisions collectively offer consumers, regulatory bodies, and advocacy groups tools to challenge deceptive environmental claims, contributing to enhanced climate litigation.

XVII  United States

In the United States, consumer protection laws, particularly state consumer protection and fraud laws, are increasingly leveraged for climate litigation against corporations. Notable cases from the Fourth and Fifth groups of Second Wave cases illustrate the cases brought based on consumer protection. In the Fourth Group (Anne Arundel County and City of Annapolis), suits were filed alleging trespass, nuisance, negligence, strict liability, and Maryland Consumer Protection Act (CPA) violations against fossil fuel companies for climate change impacts. In the fifth group (District of Columbia and Nonprofits), cases were brought under the Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA). They were mostly against fossil fuel companies and other corporations based on state law consumer protection claims. In District of Columbia v. Exxon Mobil Corp., allegations of deceptive and unfair conduct, misleading consumers about the role of products in causing climate change were brought to light. The federal district court for the District of Columbia (D.D.C.) found no federal jurisdiction for D.C.'s consumer protection lawsuit and granted D.C.'s motion to remand the case to state court. The D.D.C., and then later the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, declined to stay the remand order.

In the case of Earth Island Institute v. Coca-Cola Co. and Earth Island Institute v. BlueTriton Brands (both Second Wave cases), the D.D.C. similarly found no federal jurisdiction for Earth Island Institute's consumer protection lawsuits brought under the CPPA. However, after the case was remanded to state court in Earth Island Institute v. Coca-Cola Co., the D.C. Superior Court dismissed the case, finding that Earth Island failed to state a claim because Coca-Cola's statements were "aspirational in nature" and, therefore, not in violation of the CPPA. These cases demonstrate the use of consumer protection laws in climate litigation. Successful remands to state courts emphasise the viability of state law claims, contributing to an evolving landscape of climate and environmental litigation in the United States.