Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · Advertising & PR · Marketing decision · 2025

FlixBus called itself the greenest way to travel — then had to take the claim down

German courts upheld action over FlixBus's Belgian website, which used broad climate-friendly claims without the comparisons consumers needed.

Flix SE · FlixBus · 2025-02-20

What happened

FlixBus advertised to Belgian consumers with broad environmental claims. Its Belgian website described long-distance buses as the most environmentally friendly means of transport and used phrases such as environmentally friendly and climate friendly. It also promoted environmental benefits of FlixTrain, even though FlixTrain was not available in Belgium.

Belgium's economic inspectorate first gave the company the chance to change its practices voluntarily. When that did not resolve the issue, the Belgian authority asked its German counterparts to intervene. The German Environment Agency issued a prohibition order in January 2023 and brought proceedings that reached the German Federal Court of Justice.

On 20 February 2025, the Federal Court of Justice confirmed the lower-court decision in case I ZB 26/24. The ruling made the prohibition legally binding: the company could not keep using the most-environmentally-friendly claim in advertising to Belgian consumers, and had to remove misleading environmental claims from the Belgian website.

The business mistake was turning a real relative advantage into an absolute marketing shortcut. Coaches may compare well with many travel options, but the claim skipped the evidence customers needed: which routes, compared with what modes, under what emissions assumptions, and how offsetting changed the result.

Why it happened

  • FlixBus used general environmental language that sounded like a verified ranking rather than a bounded comparison
  • The Belgian website advertised benefits of FlixTrain even though that service was not available to Belgian consumers
  • The company was given a chance to adapt voluntarily, so the final ruling reflected a failed correction as well as the original claim
  • Carbon-offset messaging named a price while hiding the amount of emissions being offset, leaving consumers without the key denominator
What it costclaims removed after a binding court rulingembarrassing

The lesson

Environmental comparisons need their denominator. A broad green claim turns into greenwashing when customers cannot see what is being compared, where, and under which assumptions.

Sources

spotted an error? The club wants to know.

Comments · 0

    Sign in to join the comments.

    More like this

    Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →