FTC Green Guides Aren’t Enough: Navigating State Greenwashing Laws

The FTC’s Green Guides, last updated in 2012, remain the federal foundation for environmental advertising claims. They address recyclability, recycled content, compostability, renewable energy, carbon offsets, certifications, broad environmental-benefit claims, and more. They also contain one of the most useful lessons in advertising law: broad claims such as “green” and “eco-friendly” can communicate far more than an advertiser intended and therefore require far more substantiation than the advertiser may possess.

The problem is that environmental marketing has changed dramatically since 2012. National (and international) advertisers have evolved to using green-oriented claims such as “sustainable,” “net zero,” “carbon neutral,” “climate positive,” and carbon offsets, which are all claims that the 2012 Green Guides do not address. While the FTC opened a Green Guides review in December 2022, as of fall 2026 no update has issued, and the existing 2012 guides remain the federal framework. Some industry watchers even speculate that this administration will never issue an update to the 2012 guides.

California Recycling Laws Go Beyond FTC Guidance

Meanwhile, California has been California.

The state’s SB 343 Truth in Recycling requirements take a more prescriptive approach to recyclability claims. The traditional advertising-law analysis asks whether consumers reasonably understand a product to be recyclable and whether that representation is properly qualified and substantiated. California goes further by tying recyclability representations to actual collection and processing criteria in California. That means “technically capable of being recycled somewhere” and “legally advertised as recyclable in California” are not necessarily the same thing.

The law also takes aim at the use of the chasing arrows symbol, a/k/a the Mobius loop. The law presumes that consumers are confused by whether the chasing arrows symbol used on packaging means that the packaging was manufactured using recycled materials, or whether the packaging is itself recyclable. To fix this, the law clarifies that the chasing arrows symbol may only be used to communicate a “recyclable” meaning, and only if facilities exist in sufficient quantities to actually recycle the package.

Adding to the fun, the law is currently the subject of federal litigation. On July 14, 2026, a federal court issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of SB 343 while the litigation proceeds.

California’s AB 1305 Targets Carbon-Neutral Claims

California has also moved beyond the traditional “can you substantiate the claim?” model. Under AB 1305, certain businesses making net-zero or carbon-neutral claims involving voluntary carbon offsets must make specified disclosures concerning the offset projects and the basis for the claims. That creates an interesting distinction. The traditional FTC question is whether the advertiser has substantiation for the claim. Under California law, the question is whether consumers can see your substantiation.

New York Greenwashing Litigation Targets Net-Zero Claims

New York does not need a specialized greenwashing statute to make environmental advertising interesting. Ask JBS. New York challenged JBS advertising concerning the company’s commitment to reach “Net Zero by 2040,” alleging that the company lacked a viable plan to achieve the advertised goal. In November 2025, JBS agreed to a $1.1 million settlement. There is a useful lesson here for anyone drafting aspirational environmental advertising.

If you advertise a future environmental objective, ask what supports that claim today. Is there a real plan? Interim milestones? Actual emissions measurements? How much of the projected reduction depends on offsets? Does the necessary technology exist? And perhaps most importantly, are the company’s actual business plans consistent with its advertising?

Environmental Advertising Compliance Requires More Than Substantiation

The federal Green Guides remain a useful starting point, but do not stop there—check state and local requirements too. Avoid sweeping “green” and “sustainable” claims unless you know precisely what consumers are likely to understand them to mean. Treat recycling symbols and environmental imagery as potential claims, not decoration. And create a substantiation file before the ad runs, not after the demand letter arrives.

The Green Guides remain important. They just aren’t the whole answer anymore.

For more insights into advertising law, bookmark the All About Advertising Law blog and subscribe to our monthly newsletter. To learn more about Venable’s Advertising Law services, click here. And listen to the Ad Law Tool Kit Show—a podcast from Venable.