• Rising greenwashing litigation in aviation: Airlines, airports, and OEMs face growing legal scrutiny over misleading environmental claims, with high-profile cases including Ryanair and KLM highlighting the risks of overstated green credentials.
• Regulatory pressure: The EU’s Green Claims Directive and the UK Competition and Markets Authority now require transparent, independently verified environmental statements, increasing liability for inaccurate or misleading marketing.
• Mitigation strategies: Companies can reduce risk through accurate ESG reporting, independent verification of environmental claims, clear sustainability metrics, and employee training to ensure compliance and avoid potential fraud or litigation.

Greenwashing litigation against airlines is a recent trend arising out of an increased focus on reducing carbon emissions, the aviation industry’s continued failure to meet proposed environmental targets, and inaccurate statements made by airlines about the environmental measures they have implemented.

At present, many green aviation technologies remain in their infancy, in terms of either their use or development, which has caused the industry to fall behind on its climate change targets, which has been widely publicised. Airlines, which bear the brunt of that negative press, have attempted to address it by pushing their green credentials publicly, but this has resulted in some airlines inadvertently making misleading statements about their efforts to mitigate the environmental impact of their business. By way of a recent example, Ryanair was criticised by the UK Advertising Standards Authority for misleadingly claiming in an advert that it was Europe’s lowest emissions airline, and KLM was found by a Dutch court to have misled consumers in a marketing campaign which referenced its environmental credentials.

In recent years, there has been an increased regulatory focus on transparency regarding corporate green credentials. By way of example only:

(a) On 6 March 2025, the EU Directive on Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition came into force, which aims to address misleading information and greenwashing statements by requiring companies to, amongst other things, provide more transparent information to allow consumers to make informed environmental decisions about the products they are purchasing. The EU is also in the process of implementing the Green Claims Directive, which will require companies to independently verify environmental claims before they are published; and

(b) The UK Competition and Markets Authority now has statutory power to investigate and fine companies making misleading environmental claims.

As environmental regulation increases, and as environmental activism grows in the face of worsening climate conditions, it is clear that greenwashing litigation will proliferate over the coming years, and that the aviation industry will remain a rich target for such litigation, with the potential for greenwashing claims to expand to other actors in the aviation industry, such as airports and OEMs. For example, many engine OEMs are focused on developing new technologies that seek to improve fuel efficiency, lower CO2 emissions, and reduce noise pollution, and are being vocal about those new developments. However, they will need to ensure that any environmental and sustainability statements they make relating to those new technologies are accurate and transparent, otherwise they will be at significant risk of greenwashing claims.

Airports will also need to adopt the same caution and rigour regarding the accuracy of their public environmental statements. By way of example, because it is easier at present than tackling flight emissions, many airports are currently focused on ensuring their on-ground operations are carbon neutral. However, on-ground operations represent only a very small percent of an airport’s operations, with the main source of their emissions being the flights operated into and out of the airport. It is easy to see how a marketing campaign or other public statement about an airport’s green credentials, which is ambiguous or unclear that it relates only to its on-ground operations, could be the subject of a greenwashing claim.

It is also not only an airport’s current operations which will be closely watched. Any communications regarding proposed airport expansion plans will need to be carefully handled, as they too will be the subject of significant scrutiny and debate, given the tension between the economic rationale for any expansion and the environmental impact. Indeed, litigation has, and will, continue to be extensively used by environmental groups to try to stymie or delay the building of a third runway at London Heathrow.

Unless there is significant improvement by the industry in meeting its sustainability targets, it is likely that regulators, and environmental groups in particular, will use increasingly aggressive litigation tactics to try to force compliance with environmental targets and regulations. For example, in the UK, it would not be surprising to see fraud claims brought in respect of misleading environmental statements, as a new piece of legislation, the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, makes a company liable for failing to prevent a fraudulent act perpetrated by one of its employees. It is possible that it will be argued that an inaccurate statement by a company about its environmental credentials in a marketing campaign, made to try to increase sales, constitutes fraud, especially if made knowingly or negligently.

Companies can seek to mitigate the risk of such claims by being transparent and accurate in their public statements and marketing campaigns and, where possible, by seeking independent verification of any environmental claims. Moreover, they should ensure that they have clear metrics around any environmental targets, clearly drafted ESG policies, and provide appropriate training to employees. Whilst many of the factors resulting in this increased focus on greenwashing claims and regulation are outside a company’s control, these proactive measures are the most effective means of safeguarding against the prospect of litigation.