France: Paris Judicial Court rules on greenwashing allegations against oil major

On 23 October 2025, the Paris Judicial Court (Tribunal judiciaire de Paris) issued a long-awaited judgment in a greenwashing case brought by three French environmental NGOs.  This marks the first time an oil and gas company has been found liable by a court for its climate-related statements. However, it is not a complete victory for the claimants, as the Court also dismissed the majority of the claims brought against the disputed climate-related statements. 

Key takeaways

This case, analysed in more detail below, serves as a reminder to companies that environmental claims are subject to heightened scrutiny. Organisations should ensure that such statements are not misleading in any way. Key points to note include:

• In relation to environmental claims, the Court draws a fundamental distinction between institutional communication, which is currently unlikely to be qualified as an unfair commercial practice, and commercial communication which concerns the promotion, sale or supply of products or services and can fall within the scope of regulation of unfair commercial practices.

• Claims regarding carbon neutrality are subject to particular scrutiny. Under Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices, as amended by Directive 2024/825/EU on Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition, it is strictly prohibited to claim, 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 (for more information, see our publication). Under the draft Directive on the substantiation and communication of environmental claims (“Draft Green Claims Directive”), published by the European Commission on 22 March 2023, climate-related claims that a trader has a neutral, reduced, or positive impact on the environment, if based on offsetting, would be strictly regulated (for more information, see our blog post). 

• Although the case is based on French law, it could have a broader impact, particularly in other EU Member States. The Paris Judicial Court expressly referred to EU law, in particular Directive on Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition, which must be implemented by EU Member States by 27 March 2026. As one of the first interpretations of this Directive, this case is likely to serve as a reference in future actions under this Directive, both in France and other EU Member States.

• As noted above, EU-wide greenwashing legislation is rapidly developing. It is therefore crucial for companies to keep a close eye on these developments. Our dedicated teams across the world would be pleased to help you navigate the evolving landscape and to review your climate-related communications. For more information, please visit our Greenwashing page.

Background and disputed statements 

The proceedings began in 2022 when three NGOs (Notre Affaire à Tous, Greenpeace France, Les Amis de la Terre France – supported by ClientEarth) claimed that a French oil major and its subsidiary (together, the “Defendants”) made communications about their commitments to carbon neutrality and the environmental benefits of fossil gas and biofuels that were misleading and hindered consumers’ ability to make informed choices aligned with climate objectives. 

The NGOs challenged 44 communications published by the Defendants on the major’s website (page “the energy is reinventing itself”), the subsidiary’s commercial website (page “Total Direct Energie becomes TotalEnergies”) and on social media channels such as Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook and Instagram. They claimed that these communications contained statements constituting misleading commercial practices under Articles L. 121-1 et seq. of the French Consumer Code. The statements fell into three categories:

• First, several communications included statements regarding carbon neutrality and energy transition. For example, the Defendants claimed that the group has a “carbon neutrality ambition by 2050” (or “net zero 2050”) and aimed to become “a major player in the transition”;

• Second, other disputed communications contained statements in relation to fossil gas, describing it as a “cheap” energy source, “the least polluting” energy and an “indispensable complement to renewable energies”; with some stating that fossil gas derivatives have a carbon footprint “lower than other fossil fuels”; and

• Third, other statements focused on the positive environmental impact of biofuels, stating that biofuels would enable “a reduction of at least 50% in CO2 emissions compared to their fossil equivalents” or even “90%”, and would be an essential solution for decarbonising transport. 

The NGOs based their claims primarily on Article L. 121-2, 2°, b), e) of the French Consumer Code, which implemented the Directive 2005/29/EC. This article provides that a commercial practice is misleading when it is based on false or misleading statements relating to the essential characteristics of a product or service – including its properties and expected results, particularly its environmental impact – and to the scope of the advertiser's commitments, notably those regarding the environment, the nature, process or reason for the sale or provision of services. 

Article L. 121-1 of the French Consumer Code adds that a commercial practice is unfair when it is contrary to the professional diligence requirements and distorts or is likely to distort - substantially - the economic behaviour of the average consumer with respect to a product or service.  

The Court’s decision 

The Court adopted a two-step approach in reviewing the 44 disputed communications: 

• First, the Court examined, on a case-by-case basis, whether the Defendant’s communications could be qualified as commercial practices. The Court referred to Article 2(d) of the Directive 2005/29/EC, which defines business-to-consumer commercial practices as “any act, omission, course of conduct or representation, commercial communication including advertising and marketing, by a trader, directly connected with the promotion, sale or supply of a product to consumers”. 

• If the communications fell within this scope, the Court then examined whether the statements could mislead consumers about the Defendant’s environmental commitments and were therefore prohibited under Articles L. 121-1 et seq. of the French Consumer Code. The Court also considered the new provisions of Directive 2024/825/EU (the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive). 

Applying this approach to each of the disputed communications, the Court distinguished between institutional and commercial communications and found that: 

1. Most communications were deemed informational only (e.g., documents published in 2021 regarding the group's name change, communications referring to the group’s Climate Report, explanations of sustainability-related actions and ambitions, responses to third-party information about oil exploration projects, and general communications about fossil gas and biofuels, etc.) and were not directly connected with the promotion, sale, or supply of energy to consumers. As such, these communications did not fall within the scope of unfair commercial practices.

2. Only three communications, all from a commercial website operated by the Defendants, were considered by the Court as connected to the promotion of the Defendants’ offers to consumers (e.g., explanations of sustainability-related actions presented as “five good reasons” to choose the Defendants, followed by an invitation to subscribe by telephone) and therefore constituted business-to-consumer commercial practices.

   The Court then assessed whether the statements in these communications regarding the Defendants’ carbon neutrality and their role in climate change and the energy transition could alter the average consumers’ behaviour. It found that they could:

   “However, by referring in 2021, in its commercial communications, to the dual ambition of achieving carbon neutrality within the meaning of the Paris Agreement and to being a major player in the energy transition, without specifying to consumers that it had its own scenario, the veracity of which it is not for the court to assess, consisting in particular of making its ambition of carbon neutrality compatible with the pursuit of its investments in oil and gas, contrary to the recommendations of scientific work aligned with the Paris Agreement, the [Defendants’] group deliberately made an environmental statements that was likely to mislead consumers, leading them to believe that by purchasing its products or services, they were contributing to the emergence of a low-carbon economy, in line with the recommendations of the scientific community based on the Paris Agreement” (§130).

As a result, the Court ordered the Defendants to cease broadcasting the last communication that remained available (noting that the other two communications were no longer accessible), to publish the Court’s decision on their website for 180 days, and to pay compensation of EUR 8,000 to each NGO for moral damages.

Additionally, the subsidiary claim based on ecological harm was dismissed, as the Court determined that the ecological impact of the disputed statements was not sufficiently proven.

Although the decision is subject to a possible appeal by either party before the Paris Court of Appeal, the Defendants have already indicated in a press release that they do not intend to appeal. Press releases published by the NGOs do not specify whether they intend to appeal the judgment.

In their press release, the Defendants also indicated that they would replace the disputed statements on their website with a more factual description of their achievements in implementing their multi‑energy strategy.