Check a claim
Start with your wording or an example. Free to use; no account needed.
Starting wording from the public claim reference. Use it as a draft and add your own context and evidence. No company evidence or assessment result has been copied.
- Find your claim
- Make it specific
- Your review brief
Step 1 of 3
Choose your starting point
Search the library, or begin from the wording you need to review.
Up to 2,000 characters. This field stays in page memory, not an automatic save or submission. Avoid personal or confidential information.
175 retained claim patterns for everyday review · 500 unverified research examples kept in a separate collection.
Research examples are representative fixtures, not verified company statements or current source captures. Source-linked published records remain in Explore examples.
Choose a collection or topic (optional)
Matching library claims
1 matching claim in this collection
Neither collection verifies a company statement, proves performance or approves wording. A topic is a search aid, not a finding that a law applies.
Starting guidance
What needs checking?
Reviewed pattern identified: “All our cocoa through our own sourcing programme”
0 things to look at
A version you could use
What to have on file · tick what you hold
Next
Add your own answers and evidence
Answer a short question for each claim and note where your evidence is held. EmpCo.Pro turns it into a summary you can save, share or take into a full review.
Your wording, unchanged
All our cocoa through our own sourcing programme
This wording matches a retained claim pattern. No research, evidence, answers or conclusions have been copied. Continue with your context and evidence.
Add context to this claim
Add the intended context and any evidence notes. The final brief will keep unanswered questions, source limits and national research visible.
See detailed starting guidance
This exact wording matches a retained claim pattern. The prompts below remain general because no claim-specific research, answers, evidence or conclusions have been copied.
Main issue to check
Establish what the wording promises and whether the supporting evidence addresses that exact promise. A similar library claim is not a substitute for reviewing your wording.
Evidence to gather
- The wording and the page, pack or advertisement where it will appear.
- Supporting records, including the method, date, scope and any limitations.
Having a document does not establish that its evidence is sufficient.
Questions that matter
- What exactly are you promising, and about which product, service or part of the business?
- What evidence supports those exact words, and what does it leave out?
- Could someone understand a broader benefit than the evidence supports?
You can read this guidance without answering these questions first.
Sources to explore
No claim-specific source has been established in this starting view. Use the reference library to begin the research.
Unanswered questions and Not sure remain unresolved in the brief.
Organisation tools
Start a private case from this wording and context
Carry this exact wording and declared context into your private workspace. It remains available in this browser for 30 minutes, including when email confirmation opens a new tab. Answers, evidence notes, library research and conclusions are not copied. You will review the case and submit the wording yourself.
Save and reopen this report
Download a versioned snapshot containing the exact wording, context, topic choices, research answers, evidence notes and report identity. To resume, select the same claim and context, then open the file here. This is a local file, not a shared case: nothing is uploaded or saved to a team workspace.
Keep confidential information out of these notes. The file contains the claim, context, names and evidence notes in readable text; share it only through an approved channel. Entered names do not verify identity, and revision numbers are not an audit trail. When resuming, check the legal-minimum and product-scope answers again.
The EmpCo rules
What Directive (EU) 2024/825 added to EU consumer law, quoted from the Official Journal. National laws apply these rules from 27 September 2026.
- EU banned list
- Annex I practices are treated as unfair in all circumstances; no further test of the effect on consumers is needed.
- Judged case by case
- Treated as misleading where the practice is likely to change what an average consumer decides.
- Not named in the law
- No provision names this wording, but the general misleading-practice rules still apply.
EU banned listGeneric environmental claimsDirective 2005/29/EC, Annex I, point 4a
Making a generic environmental claim for which the trader is not able to demonstrate recognised excellent environmental performance relevant to the claim.
In plain words
Broad words such as “eco-friendly” or “green”, without the specific benefit stated clearly on the same pack, page or ad, are on the banned list unless you hold recognised excellent performance: the EU Ecolabel, an officially recognised EN ISO 14024 type I ecolabel, or top performance under other EU law.
Typical wording
- Eco-friendly
- Green
- Climate friendly
- Nature’s friend
- Gentle on the environment
- Biodegradable
Coffee example
“Our eco-friendly coffee” on the pack, with the explanation only on a website.
Safer route
Replace it with the specific benefit, stated on the same medium: what, how much, and how it is verified.
How similar wording has been treated
Environmentally friendly
· Named in EU lawNamed in the Directive as a generic environmental claim. Under the amended Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, such a claim is banned unless the trader can show recognised excellent environmental performance relevant to the claim.
Eco-friendly
· Named in EU lawNamed in the Directive as a generic environmental claim. Under the amended Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, such a claim is banned unless the trader can show recognised excellent environmental performance relevant to the claim.
EU banned listWhole product or business, when only one part qualifiesDirective 2005/29/EC, Annex I, point 4b
Making an environmental claim about the entire product or the trader’s entire business when it concerns only a certain aspect of the product or a specific activity of the trader’s business.
In plain words
A claim that reads as covering the whole product or company, when it is true only of one part or one activity, is on the banned list.
Typical wording
- Made with recycled materials (only the pack is)
- Sustainable company (one programme)
- Plastic-free (only the outer box)
Coffee example
“100% sustainable coffee” when only a share of the volume is certified.
Safer route
Name the part and the share: “Pack made from 80% recycled board”, “60% of our coffee volume certified to [scheme]”.
EU banned listProduct climate claims based on offsettingDirective 2005/29/EC, Annex I, point 4c
Claiming, based on the offsetting of greenhouse gas emissions, that a product has a neutral, reduced or positive impact on the environment in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.
In plain words
Saying a product is climate neutral, carbon neutral, CO2 compensated or similar is on the banned list when it rests on offsets or credits.
Typical wording
- Climate neutral
- CO2 compensated
- Carbon positive
- Climate net zero product
Coffee example
“Carbon neutral espresso” achieved by buying credits.
Safer route
Describe measured reductions with the baseline and method. Funded projects can be described separately, not as cancelling the product’s footprint.
How similar wording has been treated
Climate neutral
· Named in EU lawGiven in the Directive as an example of a claim that a product has a neutral, reduced or positive impact on the climate. Where it is based on greenhouse gas offsetting, it is banned under the amended Unfair Commercial Practices Directive.
CO2 neutral certified
· Named in EU lawGiven in the Directive as an example of a claim that a product has a neutral, reduced or positive impact on the climate. Where it is based on greenhouse gas offsetting, it is banned under the amended Unfair Commercial Practices Directive.
EU banned listSustainability labels without a certification schemeDirective 2005/29/EC, Annex I, point 2a
Displaying a sustainability label that is not based on a certification scheme or not established by public authorities.
In plain words
A badge, seal or trust mark about environmental or social qualities is on the banned list unless it comes from a third-party certification scheme with public terms, or from a public authority.
Typical wording
- Own “Planet Positive” badge
- In-house “Responsible Origin” seal
- Leaf icon presented as a mark
Coffee example
A roaster’s own sourcing seal checked only by its own team.
Safer route
Use a mark from a third-party certification scheme or a public authority, or state the fact in plain words instead of a badge.
How similar wording has been treated
Certified carbon negative company
· Complaint upheldNaming a certification did not explain how the carbon negative status was achieved.
A clearer version Certified [x]% lower-emission company (measured by [method] against [year], without offsets; [scheme], certificate [number], covering [scope]).
Environmental Airline of the Year
· Complaint upheldThe award was not explained, so it did not support the impression that flying with the airline is environmentally friendly.
EU banned listLegal requirements presented as a special featureDirective 2005/29/EC, Annex I, point 10a
Presenting requirements imposed by law on all products within the relevant product category on the Union market as a distinctive feature of the trader’s offer.
In plain words
Highlighting something the law already requires of every product in the category as if it set yours apart is on the banned list.
Typical wording
- Meets EU residue limits
- PFAS-free food packaging
- Contains no banned substances
Coffee example
Promoting that the coffee meets EU maximum pesticide residue limits.
Safer route
Claim only what goes beyond the legal minimum, and say by how much.
How similar wording has been treated
PFAS-free food packaging
· Named in EU lawThe EU Packaging Regulation restricts PFAS in food-contact packaging.
Plastic-free
· Complaint upheldThe evidence did not show the product contained no plastic or that its film would not form microplastics.
EU banned listDurability, repair, consumables and software updatesDirective 2005/29/EC, Annex I, point 23d to 23j
Falsely claiming that under normal conditions of use a good has a certain durability in terms of usage time or intensity. (point 23g) — Presenting a good as allowing repair when it does not. (point 23h) — Inducing the consumer to replace or replenish the consumables of a good earlier than necessary for technical reasons. (point 23i)
In plain words
Seven practices on durability, repairability, consumables and software updates are on the banned list, including false durability claims and presenting a good as repairable when it is not.
Typical wording
- Lasts a lifetime
- Easy to repair
- Replace your filter every month
Coffee example
Machine lifespan claims, or prompts to replace filters or descaler sooner than needed.
Safer route
Hold test evidence for durability claims and be accurate about repair and consumables.
Judged case by caseFuture environmental performanceDirective 2005/29/EC, Article 6(2)(d)
making an environmental claim related to future environmental performance without clear, objective, publicly available and verifiable commitments set out in a detailed and realistic implementation plan that includes measurable and time-bound targets and other relevant elements necessary to support its implementation, such as allocation of resources, and that is regularly verified by an independent third party expert, whose findings are made available to consumers;
In plain words
A future target (“net zero by 2040”) needs a published, detailed plan with measurable, dated targets and resources, checked regularly by an independent expert whose findings consumers can see.
Typical wording
- Net zero by 2040
- Plastic-free by 2030
- Deforestation-free by 2027
Coffee example
“Carbon neutral by 2030” with no published plan or independent check.
Safer route
Publish the plan, interim targets and the independent expert’s findings, and link them from the claim.
How similar wording has been treated
We're committed to supporting the energy transition
· Complaint upheldIt was part of wider low-carbon claims that left out the scale of the bank's financed emissions.
A clearer version We're committed to supporting the energy transition (plan with interim targets at [link], checked by [independent body]; [figure] per [unit], [life-cycle boundary], [method]).
Developing biofuels and synthetic fuels to achieve net zero emissions
· Complaint upheldThe ad left out the target date and how the fuels fitted the plan, so the basis of the claim was unclear.
Judged case by caseIrrelevant benefitsDirective 2005/29/EC, Article 6(2)(e)
advertising benefits to consumers that are irrelevant and do not result from any feature of the product or business.
In plain words
Advertising a benefit that does not come from any feature of the product or business can be misleading.
Typical wording
- No palm oil (on pure coffee)
- GMO-free (where none exist in the category)
Coffee example
“No palm oil” on pure roasted coffee.
Safer route
Claim only features the product actually has that set it apart.
How similar wording has been treated
PFAS-free food packaging
· Named in EU lawThe EU Packaging Regulation restricts PFAS in food-contact packaging.
Plastic-free
· Complaint upheldThe evidence did not show the product contained no plastic or that its film would not form microplastics.
Judged case by caseComparisons of products on sustainabilityDirective 2005/29/EC, Article 7(7)
Where a trader provides a service which compares products and provides the consumer with information on environmental or social characteristics or on circularity aspects, such as durability, reparability or recyclability, of the products or suppliers of those products, information about the method of comparison, the products which are the object of comparison and the suppliers of those products, as well as the measures in place to keep that information up to date, shall be regarded as material information.
In plain words
When products are compared on environmental or social grounds, the method, what is compared and how the information is kept up to date count as information consumers must get.
Typical wording
- 30% lower footprint than the market leader
- Greener than average
Coffee example
Comparing your coffee’s footprint with an unnamed “industry average”.
Safer route
State the method, what you compared with, the date and the data source next to the claim.
How similar wording has been treated
Better for our world
· Complaint upheldThe basis of comparison was unclear and there was not enough evidence of the products' environmental impact.
Kinder to the planet
· Complaint upheldThe basis of comparison was not explained and the products were not shown to be less damaging than alternatives.
Not named in the lawSpecific claims not named in the lawDirective 2005/29/EC, Articles 6 and 7
Specific environmental and social claims are not named as banned practices, but must not mislead under the general rules.
In plain words
Specific claims about recycled content, sourcing, energy, water, waste or social standards are allowed, but must be accurate, scoped and supported by evidence you can show.
Typical wording
- Made with 50% recycled plastic
- Powered by renewable electricity
- Fairly traded cocoa
Coffee example
“Grown without synthetic pesticides on 100% of farms supplying this blend.”
Safer route
State the scope, the share and how it is verified next to the claim, and keep the evidence on file.
How similar wording has been treated
Made with recycled plastic (packaging)
· Named in EU lawThe EU Packaging Regulation sets mandatory minimum recycled content for plastic packaging, binding by 2030 and increasing from 2040.
Recycled content label
· Named in EU lawThe Regulation says recycled-content and bio-based-content labels are not mandatory, but if used they must follow a harmonised label.