Greenwashing Bans Take Shape: Austria's Draft Bill Implementing the EmpCo Directive - and going beyond

The Austrian legislature has recently introduced a draft for consultation transposing a relevant part of the Empowering Consumer Directive (Directive (EU) 2024/825) (EmpCo Directive) into the Austrian Unfair Competition Act (UWG). Previously, the Commission had opened infringement proceedings against Austria since the deadline for a transposition of the EmpCo Directive had already elapsed on 27 March 2026. The draft provides for several anti-greenwashing provisions and also proposes a notable transitional rule for existing goods. Going beyond the EmpCo Directive and outside of a green claims context, it also seeks to tackle abusive cease-and-desist letters. We outline the key provisions and implications for businesses.

What is it about?

The draft transposes the amendments to the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive required by the EmpCo Directive into the UWG. In substance, it closely tracks the relevant EU requirements: The existing general clause prohibiting misleading commercial practices – under which Austrian case law already applies a strict standard to environmental claims – is being further specified. Additionally, several new per-se prohibitions are implemented in the Annex (“black list”). Mirroring the timeline of the EmpCo Directive, the core new provisions will apply from 27 September 2026.

The parallel amendments to the Consumer Rights Directive (Article 2) will be transposed separately via changes to national Austrian consumer laws (FAGG and the KSchG).

Key changes at a glance

• Stricter requirements for environmental claims. Generic environmental claims (e.g., "environmentally friendly", "green", "ecological", "climate friendly") will be prohibited unless the trader can demonstrate recognised excellent environmental performance (Annex point 4a). If, however, the claim is specified in clear and prominent terms on the same medium, it does not qualify as a "generic" environmental claim.
• Ban on offsetting-based climate claims. Product-related claims such as "climate neutral" or "carbon positive" are impermissible where they are based on the offsetting of greenhouse gas emissions outside the product's value chain (Annex point 4c). Claims based on the product's actual lifecycle impact remain permissible.
• Sustainability labels. Labels may only be used if they are established by public authorities or based on a certification scheme that meets strict statutory requirements (openness of the scheme, third-party certification, etc.; Annex point 2a).
• Future environmental performance. Claims about future targets (e.g. “carbon neutral by year 2030”) require a detailed and realistic implementation plan with measurable, time-bound targets, regularly verified by an independent external expert and made public to consumers.
• Obsolescence. New prohibitions cover, among others, commercial communications about goods with durability-limiting features, and the withholding of information about the negative effects of software updates (Annex points 23d et seq.).
• Advertising self-evident features. Advertising irrelevant benefits that do not result from any feature of the product or business is now expressly prohibited (section 2(3) no. 5).

Austria's distinctive approach: Three years grace period for existing goods

A distinctive feature of Austria’s proposed implementation of the EmpCo Directive is the new section 44(16) UWG. As drafted, civil law claims concerning goods for breaches of the new rules may, for three years after entry into force of the new law, be brought only where the relevant goods were placed on the market after 27 September 2026.

As a result, goods placed on the market on or before that date would be shielded from civil enforcement for three years, even if e.g. their environmental claims or sustainability labels do not comply with the new anti-greenwashing rules. The Austrian legislator’s rationale is environmental: Slow-moving stock should not have to be destroyed solely because its packaging no longer meets the new requirements. The legislator assumes that, after three years, such legacy stock will have disappeared.

Keep in mind, however, that the carve-out is limited. It applies only to goods, not to services such as advertising or websites. It also covers only civil claims. Public enforcement, albeit historically less prominent in Austria, would therefore remain possible even for goods placed on the market before 27 September 2026.

This seems to potentially be going beyond the EmpCo Directive itself. The European Commission Q&A on the EmpCo Directive takes the view that the Directive provides for no (additional) transition period after 27 September 2026: From that date, traders must comply, including for existing products. The Commission instead points to practical fixes, such as stickers or supplementary point-of-sale information, and to national authorities’ discretion in applying proportionality but not an “enforcement grace period”.

Practical takeaway: Businesses should review whether existing packaging stock can be placed on the Austrian market before 27 September 2026. But the carve-out should not be overstated: It is Austrian-only, time-limited and confined to civil claims for goods. Authorities may still take action, and retailers/customers may still insist on compliant packaging, particularly where public enforcement risk remains.

A national add-on: Curbing abusive cease-and-desist letters (section 7a UWG)

Beyond implementing the EmpCo Directive, the draft law proposes a new section 7a UWG on abusive cease-and-desist letters (rechtsmissbräuchliche Abmahnungen), implementing a policy goal to curb abusive warning practices.

The new section is comparable to a similar provision introduced by the German legislator in 2020 (sec. 8c German UWG). The target of the new provision is mass warning letters used as a revenue model rather than genuine enforcement, a risk the draft sees in particular in e-commerce, where automated tools can identify alleged information and labelling breaches at scale.

The draft considers cease- and-desist letters as abusive if, cumulatively: 

• many substantively similar warnings are issued;
• few or no court actions follow where settlement is refused; and
• the warning primarily serves to generate revenue rather than combat infringements.

If so, the sender cannot recover costs and may itself face injunction claims, including by qualified bodies such as the Austrian Chamber of Labour, the Austrian Federal Economic Chamber or the VKI, the Austrian Consumers' Association.

For businesses, section 7a UWG offers protection against systematic “warning waves”, while drawing clearer lines for legitimate enforcement.

Conclusion and outlook

For businesses, the new anti-greenwashing rules bring few surprises: They largely follow the EmpCo Directive. The main practical point is timing. The transitional rule in section 44 UWG may create useful breathing space for existing goods, but its value should not be overstated: It is Austria-specific, time-limited and confined to civil claims. Authorities and customers may still expect compliant packaging. 

The new section 7a UWG on abusive cease-and-desist letters is a notable Austrian addition. It may offer businesses a useful defence against systematic “warning waves”, particularly in e-commerce. At the same time, businesses enforcing their own rights should ensure that warning letters are targeted, well-founded and not primarily cost-driven.

As the draft may still change, businesses should monitor the legislative process, in particular whether the proposed three-year “grace period” for existing stock makes it into the final bill. But they should not wait: Environmental claims, sustainability labels, packaging stock and enforcement practices should be reviewed now.