Who gains from saving nature
Ledger 1 : 33 — For each dollar financing nature-based solutions in 2023, about $33 financed activities harmful to nature. (UNEP)
Cases / Law, regulation and treaties · Sweden · 2019–2023

Swedish court bans Arla's "netto noll klimatavtryck" claim for organic dairy products (2023)

Short record: the main facts, with sources. A full case file has not been prepared.

Nature's voice · report
Payable if the claim is repeated 1 million SEK were paid in penalties in my name. No one has measured what reached me.
Did nature suffer? Not measured.
In my name
Not on record
  • The record does not name which of my species, waters, soils or forests were harmed.
What the record lacks: 3 none on record · 1 not measured · 1 disputed See the gaps

The Patent and Market Court of the Stockholm District Court ruled on 2 February 2023, in a case brought by the Consumer Ombudsman, that Arla's "netto noll klimatavtryck" (net zero climate footprint) claim on its Arla Ko Eko products was misleading, because the promised effect would be reached only after 100 years. It banned the claim under a fine of SEK 1,000,000 and ordered Arla to pay the Consumer Ombudsman's costs of SEK 354,855.

SEK 1,000,000Fine attached to the ban
Stockholm Patent and Market Court, PMT 17372-21, 2 February 2023: a fine payable if Arla repeats the claim. Arla was also ordered to pay the Consumer Ombudsman's legal costs of SEK 354,855.

Status As of 2 February 2023: ban and fine ordered and costs awarded to the Consumer Ombudsman; no later development found.

What?
A Swedish court banned Arla's "netto noll klimatavtryck" claim on its Arla Ko Eko dairy products, which relied on purchased climate credits, as misleading. Stockholms tingsrätt, Patent- och marknadsdomstolen (judgment, copy hosted by Forbrukertilsynet, Norway)
When?
Who?
Gained
None on record
Lost
Harmed
None on record
Why?
The court found that the average consumer could not be expected to understand that the promised effect would be reached only after 100 years, and that Arla had not shown the marketing to be reliable. Stockholms tingsrätt, Patent- och marknadsdomstolen (judgment, copy hosted by Forbrukertilsynet, Norway)
How?
The Consumer Ombudsman brought a case under the Marketing Act; the claim relied on climate credits Arla had bought in forest-conservation, tree-planting and biogas projects. Stockholms tingsrätt, Patent- och marknadsdomstolen (judgment, copy hosted by Forbrukertilsynet, Norway)
6 of 6 questions answered from the record

What happened

The record, in order.

From summer 2019 until spring 2022 Arla Foods AB (Arla), a farmer-owned cooperative, marketed products in its Arla Ko Eko organic range in Sweden with the claim "netto noll klimatavtryck" (net zero climate footprint). On the older pack, used until about week 37 of 2020, the text said that all remaining greenhouse-gas emissions were balanced by carbon-binding activities such as planting and protecting forest, which made the product climate neutral. On the newer pack the text said that all climate emissions from cow to consumer were offset in full through the purchase of climate credits from, for example, tree-planting projects.

According to the judgment, Arla had bought climate credits in the Bujang Raba forest-conservation project in Indonesia and the Trees for Global Benefit tree-planting project in Uganda, both certified by Plan Vivo, and in the African Biogas Partnership Programme, certified by Gold Standard, with about one third of its offsetting in each. In its calculation, which the judgment records as Arla's, the greenhouse-gas emissions of the Arla Ko Eko range in 2018 were 158,427,000 kg CO2e.

In a case brought by the Consumer Ombudsman (Konsumentombudsmannen), the court ruled on 2 February 2023 that the marketing was misleading under section 10 and unfair under section 8 of the Swedish Marketing Act. It found that the calculations aimed at a result to be reached only after 100 years, that the average consumer could not be expected to understand this, and that on a cursory reading the claim could be understood only to mean that the product did not affect the climate at all or that its climate impact had been fully compensated. It held that Arla had not shown with sufficient strength that the marketing was reliable. The court banned Arla, under a fine of SEK 1,000,000, from using the claim "netto noll klimatavtryck" or similar claims in marketing dairy products, and ordered Arla to pay the Consumer Ombudsman's legal costs of SEK 354,855 plus interest. In setting the fine the court noted that Arla had stopped using the marketing during the proceedings.

Dagens PS reported on 21 November 2022 that Arla was stopping the offsetting of its products ahead of the trial and had earlier in the year stopped using the claim; Arla's sustainability manager said the company had run the campaign "by the book". LandbrugsAvisen, citing SVT, quoted her on 22 November 2022 saying that the offsetting for the Arla Ko Eko range would be phased out at year-end as other climate and sustainability measures were moved closer to Arla's own operations. For a Danish complaint over an Arla "CO2e-neutral" claim, no final outcome was found.

  1. 2019Summer: Arla starts using the "netto noll klimatavtryck" claim on Arla Ko Eko packs (marketing ran until spring 2022, according to the court)
  2. 202221-22 November: reports that Arla is stopping the offsetting of the Arla Ko Eko range, ahead of the trial
  3. 20232 February: Patent and Market Court rules in PMT 17372-21 that the marketing was misleading; ban under a SEK 1,000,000 fine; Arla to pay the Consumer Ombudsman's costs of SEK 354,855

What was said

Claims, in the words of those who made them.

“Marknadsföringen har således varit vilseledande enligt 10 § marknadsföringslagen och även otillbörlig enligt 8 § samma lag.”

Where accounts differ

Each party's account, side by side, with its source. The record does not settle these points; it shows them.

Whether the claim "netto noll klimatavtryck" was misleading
Government and regulators
Consumer Ombudsman (Konsumentombudsmannen)

Claimed that the marketing was misleading and contrary to good marketing practice.

Stockholms tingsrätt, Patent- och marknadsdomstolen (judgment, copy hosted by Forbrukertilsynet, Norway)
Courts
Patent and Market Court

Found the marketing misleading under section 10 and unfair under section 8 of the Marketing Act.

Stockholms tingsrätt, Patent- och marknadsdomstolen (judgment, copy hosted by Forbrukertilsynet, Norway)

How it looked

What was shown, beside what was recorded.

Shown

Recorded

In nature's name

What was promised in nature's name, the money that moved, and what was measured.

Promised

Money moved in nature's name

WhatKindAmountPeriod
Fine attached to the ban
Arla
Stockholms tingsrätt, Patent- och marknadsdomstolen (judgment, copy hosted by Forbrukertilsynet, Norway)
Penalty1m SEK2 Feb 2023
Consumer Ombudsman's legal costs
Arla
Stockholms tingsrätt, Patent- och marknadsdomstolen (judgment, copy hosted by Forbrukertilsynet, Norway)
Compensation0.35m SEK2 Feb 2023

What was measured

Not measured

No independent measurement of the climate effect of the credits behind the claim is on record. Arla's own emissions calculation is recorded in the judgment as Arla's. The ruling concerns whether the claim was reliable and how consumers would understand it.

Findings on record

Who gained

Money that reached nature, beside money that stayed elsewhere.

Reached nature or the ground

Not published
No figure published.

Gained elsewhere

Not totalled
Fine attached to the ban1m
Consumer Ombudsman's costs0.35m
Currency: SEK · Window: 2 Feb 2023. All figures cover the same period. * Estimate built from cited figures.

Responses on record

In court and with insurers

Every proceeding and every insurer decision on record.

Lawsuits and rulings

  1. 2023-02-02Claimant wonSEK 1000bn Fine attached to the ban, payable if the claim is repeated
    Consumer Ombudsman v Arla ("netto noll klimatavtryck")
    Stockholm Patent and Market Court, PMT 17372-21 · Civil · Consumer Ombudsman (Konsumentombudsmannen) → Arla Foods AB

    The court found the marketing misleading and unfair and banned Arla, under a fine of SEK 1,000,000, from using the claim or similar claims in marketing dairy products; Arla to pay the Consumer Ombudsman's costs of SEK 354,855. Stockholms tingsrätt, Patent- och marknadsdomstolen (judgment, copy hosted by Forbrukertilsynet, Norway)

Insurers

No insurer decision on record.

What we don't know

Undisclosed, unproven, untried: recorded as data.

Nature

  • Not measured Harm to nature: The record holds no measurement of harm to nature.

Accounts

  • Disputed Whether the claim "netto noll klimatavtryck" was misleading

Record

  • None on record No final outcome found for a Danish complaint over an Arla "CO2e-neutral" claim.
  • None on record The sources reviewed do not say whether Arla appealed the judgment.
  • None on record None on record: an independent measurement of the climate effect of the credits behind the claim.

Did the harm stop?

Arla stopped using the claim during the proceedings, according to the court, and said the offsetting for the Arla Ko Eko range would be phased out at year-end 2022; the court issued a ban.

Who paid?

A fine of SEK 1,000,000 is payable if the claim is repeated; Arla was ordered to pay the Consumer Ombudsman's costs of SEK 354,855 plus interest.

Sources

Voices on record: — Company or project— Government and regulators✓ Courts✓ Press and investigations— Communities and civil society— Researchers

Courts

  1. DOM, Patent- och marknadsdomstolen, mål nr PMT 17372-21 (Konsumentombudsmannen mot Arla Foods AB)
    Stockholms tingsrätt, Patent- och marknadsdomstolen (judgment, copy hosted by Forbrukertilsynet, Norway) · 2023-02-02

Press and investigations

Connected cases

Related matters, and cases linked to this one through the same organisations, with the role each played in both.

Carbon and conservation finance

Offset
Using carbon credits to balance emissions released elsewhere, so that a buyer can claim lower or zero net emissions.
Lobbying, PR and greenwashing · Green claim · Biodiversity offset / offset credit · Germany · 2023–2026
German courts bar 'CO2-neutral' and 'klimaneutral' advertising by five companies in cases brought by Deutsche Umwelthilfe (2023-2026)
Same type: Green claim, Biodiversity offset / offset creditCourt: won by claimantHarm to nature not measured
Law, regulation and treaties · Green claim · Denmark · 2020–2024
Danish courts find Danish Crown's "Klimakontrolleret gris" label breached the Marketing Practices Act (2024)
Same type: Law, regulation and treaties, Green claimCourt: won by claimantHarm to nature not measured
Law, regulation and treaties · Green claim · Italy · 2021–2022
Gorizia court grants Alcantara an interim injunction against Miko's "100% recyclable" and "eco-friendly" claims for Dinamica microfibre (2021); Miko says the order was later revoked
Same type: Law, regulation and treaties, Green claimCourt: won by claimantHarm to nature not measured
Law, regulation and treaties · Green claim · United Kingdom · 2023
UK Advertising Standards Authority upholds complaint about Lufthansa "Fly more sustainably" Google ad (6 December 2023)
Same type: Law, regulation and treaties, Green claimCourt: won by claimantHarm to nature not measured
Law, regulation and treaties · Green claim · United Kingdom · 2020
UK Advertising Standards Authority upholds complaints about Ryanair "lowest emissions airline" advertisements (5 February 2020)
Same type: Law, regulation and treaties, Green claimCourt: won by claimantHarm to nature not measured
Law, regulation and treaties · Green claim · United Kingdom · 2022
UK Advertising Standards Authority upholds complaints about Innocent "Little drinks with big dreams for a healthier planet" advertisements (23 February 2022)
Same type: Law, regulation and treaties, Green claimCourt: won by claimantHarm to nature not measured