Hornbach sold 'bird protection hedges' — the plants were invasive, the ad banned

At its Dresden store, the DIY chain Hornbach advertised plants as 'Naturhecke' — nature hedge — 'heimisch' (native) and 'Vogelschutzhecke' (bird protection hedge), with images of bees and other animals implying real ecological benefit. The plants behind the labels were Gemeiner Bocksdorn (Lycium barbarum), butterfly bush (Buddleja davidii), the apple rose (Rosa rugosa) and forsythia (Forsythia intermedia).

All four are classified as potentially invasive non-native species in Germany and appear on the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation's list of wild non-native vascular plants — they offer no such ecological value. Verbraucherzentrale Sachsen sued, arguing that environmental promises are not marketing leeway: pairing conservation claims with wildlife imagery creates concrete expectations consumers must be able to trust.

On 23 July 2026 the Higher Regional Court of Zweibrücken (case 4 UKl 3/25) agreed: invasive, non-native plants cannot be marketed as ecological added value, and the advertising created expectations the products could not fulfil. Hornbach is prohibited from continuing the claims; the judgment was not yet final at reporting time.

Court banned the ads: eco-labels are factual claims, so invasive species cannot be marketed as ecological value, and retailers must verify before printing.

Eco-labels are factual claims, not mood: 'native' and 'bird protection' said things about the plants that the Federal Agency's species list contradicted.

The imagery did extra work: bees and wildlife beside the claims turned a species list into a promise of ecological benefit.

Retailers inherit the claim's burden: the court set the standard that garden and DIY sellers must verify environmental claims before printing them.

Green claims are facts, not atmosphere: 'nature hedge' and wildlife imagery sold ecological value the plants legally could not deliver. Verify the species before selling the virtue.

Hornbach must stop the specific advertising; the not-yet-final judgment of 23 July 2026 stands as a precedent cited for hardware stores, garden centres and plant retailers to verify conservation claims. Verbraucherzentrale Sachsen brought the case as part of consumer-centre enforcement against greenwashing in retail.