The encyclopedia · Legal & Compliance · Legal decision · 2023–2025
Germany's top court ruled FlixBus must prove its green claims
The German Federal Court of Justice ruled FlixBus must remove unsubstantiated green claims from its Belgian website, setting a cross-border precedent.
FlixBus · 2025-02-20
What happened
On 20 February 2025, the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) definitively ruled against FlixBus, confirming that the long-distance coach operator's environmental advertising on its Belgian website was misleading. The case began when the Belgian Economic Inspectorate, as part of an EU-wide CPC Network sweep on misleading sustainability claims, found FlixBus was using unsubstantiated terms such as 'the most environmentally friendly means of transport' and 'climate-friendly' without specific evidence.
The German Environment Agency (UBA) banned the advertising in January 2023 after Belgium requested enforcement under EU cross-border consumer protection rules. FlixBus was given a chance to modify its claims but refused. After multiple appeals, the BGH upheld the lower court's decision, establishing that general and comparative environmental claims without reference to specific product characteristics are impermissible. The court also ruled that FlixBus's CO₂ offsetting offer was not transparent — it stated only the price, not the emissions quantity.
The ruling marked the first time the Belgian authorities obtained a conviction for misleading environmental claims in the transport sector. UBA President Dirk Messner called the decision 'a signal far beyond the transport industry when it comes to advertising with environmental claims.' FlixBus was ordered to remove the misleading statements from its website.
Why it happened
- FlixBus made broad environmental superiority claims — 'most environmentally friendly means of transport' — without comparing specific routes, vehicle types, or life-cycle data against alternatives.
- The CO₂ offsetting offer disclosed only the price, concealing the emissions quantity, making it impossible for consumers to assess the environmental benefit of the purchase.
- FlixBus chose not to correct the claims when given a voluntary window, forcing a multi-year legal process that established a binding cross-border precedent.
The lesson
General environmental superiority claims without specific, verifiable data are legally indefensible, and voluntary correction windows exist precisely so that ignoring them escalates the cost.
Aftermath
The BGH confirmed the UBA's ban on FlixBus's misleading advertising. FlixBus was ordered to remove the unsubstantiated claims from its Belgian website. The ruling sets a binding precedent for cross-border enforcement of greenwashing rules under the CPC Regulation.
Sources
- German Environment Agency — BGH ruling on environmental statements on long-distance bus travel
- New Mobility — FlixBus convicted of greenwashing in Belgium
- Brussels Times — FlixBus fined for greenwashing on its Belgian website
- ICPEN — FlixBus greenwashing case
spotted an error? The club wants to know.
More like this
Mühle Glashütte was hit with a €63M contractual penalty — and the bill cracked the company
FlixBus called itself the greenest way to travel — then had to take the claim down
Vetements spent six years fighting to trademark its own name — and lost
Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →
Comments · 0
Sign in to join the comments.