Two pieces of information reached the purchasing department of a large retail chain: the act implementing the EmpCo Directive had been postponed by a year, and “the authority will take a lenient approach to old stock". The first turned out to be true. The second could not be confirmed in any public document. The decision had already been made: we will revisit the issue in 2027.
The problem is that the President of UOKiK has just brought charges against seven major companies — without waiting for any new legislation. Based on laws that have been in force for years. With a fine of up to 10% of turnover for each challenged practice.
If your company uses claims such as “eco", “green" or “climate neutral" on packaging, in advertising or in online product descriptions, this article is for you. Below, you will find an explanation of why postponing the effective date of the new rules does not mean a year of peace, which environmental claims are already risky today, and what to do to avoid making the problem worse instead of solving it.
Key terms worth knowing
Before you continue, make sure you understand the three terms that appear repeatedly in this article.
| Term | What it means | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| EmpCo Directive (2024/825) | The EU’s “Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition" Directive — it amends the rules on unfair commercial practices by adding prohibitions concerning environmental claims | It has been in force at EU level since 26 March 2024; it must be transposed into national law |
| Environmental claim | Any marketing message suggesting that a product, service or company has a positive environmental impact or is less harmful than the alternatives — e.g. “eco", “green", “climate neutral" | If you do not have evidence to support it, you risk being accused of an unfair commercial practice |
| Old stock | Products manufactured, ordered or placed on shelves before the effective date of the new rules | Contrary to industry rumours, old stock is not automatically exempt from the new rules |
| CPC Network | The EU Consumer Protection Cooperation Network | It coordinates enforcement; its findings are not a source of law, but they influence the priorities of national authorities |
| Greenwashing | The practice of creating a false or exaggerated impression of the environmental benefits of a product, service or company | UOKiK already treats this as a breach of the rules on unfair commercial practices |
Two independent variables, not two alternative scenarios
The most common mistake I see in companies’ responses to the postponement of the act is treating the effective date of the new rules and the way UOKiK assesses environmental claims as a single issue. These are two separate tracks.
Track 1: the new act. On 2 September 2026, the Sejm Committees on Economy and Development and on Environmental Protection adopted an amendment postponing the entry into force of the act implementing EmpCo by one year. The Sejm passed the act on 4 September 2026. The planned application date of the new rules is 27 September 2027. The act is currently before the Senate — the date is not yet formally final, although a change is unlikely.
Track 2: the rules already in force today. The prohibition on misleading consumers through environmental claims follows from the Act on Counteracting Unfair Commercial Practices (Articles 4 and 5) and the Act on Competition and Consumer Protection (Article 24). The new act clarifies the prohibitions and increases the penalties, but it does not create protection from scratch.
The evidence? On 29 July 2025, the President of UOKiK brought charges against Allegro Polska, DHL eCommerce Poland, DPD Polska and InPost. The challenged claims included “green deliveries" and planting trees that were already growing (Allegro), a “green fleet" and “environmental neutrality" (DHL, DPD), and parcel lockers reducing CO₂ and an emissions calculator that omitted data (InPost). On 21 January 2026 — charges against Bolt, Tchibo and Zara. The legal basis: existing laws, not the EmpCo Directive (UOKiK announcement — Allegro, DHL, DPD, InPost · UOKiK — Bolt, Tchibo, Zara).
Conclusion: postponing the act by one year does not affect how UOKiK assesses your current claims. These are not two scenarios in which “you can wait in either case". They are two parallel tracks of risk.
Why old stock does not protect you
There is a widespread belief in the industry that products ordered or manufactured before the application date of the new rules benefit from some form of grandfathering. Let us examine where this belief comes from and what the documents actually say.
The CPC Network’s Common Understanding — what it actually establishes
On 30 June 2026, the European Commission announced a Common Understanding adopted by the CPC Network on the enforcement of the EmpCo Directive. The document addresses old stock (European Commission announcement — CPC Common Understanding, 30 June 2026).
What follows from it:
- Stock manufactured, ordered or placed on shelves before the application date of the rules does not exempt a business from the new requirements
- At the enforcement stage, authorities are to consider mitigating criteria: the volume of stock, the product’s shelf life, the technical feasibility of making changes, the seriousness of the infringement and the circumstances of the case
- In justified cases, authorities are to favour preventive measures (explanations) over penalties
- Enforcement priorities: first, claims made through online channels; then, practices most harmful to consumers; and finally, claims displayed outside the packaging
What the Common Understanding does not establish
| What the industry expects | What the document actually says |
|---|---|
| A general transition period for old stock | None — an individual enforcement assessment, not an exemption from the application of the rules |
| A category of “products with a long shelf life" subject to more lenient treatment | No such category exists in European Commission or CPC documents |
| A category of “slow-moving products" | No such category exists |
| A binding commitment by UOKiK to apply the CPC guidelines | The Common Understanding is not an act of EU law — it does not bind national authorities |
The EmpCo Directive itself does not contain a grandfathering clause or a sell-through period (Directive (EU) 2024/825 — EUR-Lex PL). As of the publication date of this article, no EU Member State has been confirmed as having established binding grandfathering through legislation.
What about the alleged letter from UOKiK to the Council of Ministers?
Information has been circulating in the industry about an alleged letter from the President of UOKiK to the Council of Ministers, in which the authority was said to have assured that it would apply the Commission’s recommendations to old stock. The existence of this document could not be confirmed in any public source — not in UOKiK’s Public Information Bulletin, official announcements or transcripts of Sejm committee meetings.
If you base a purchasing decision on information that cannot be found in a public document, that is not risk management. It is a gamble.
Which environmental claims carry the greatest risk
The EmpCo Directive amends Annex I to Directive 2005/29/EC by adding prohibitions that apply in all circumstances — without any need for an individual assessment of their impact on the consumer (Directive (EU) 2024/825 — EUR-Lex PL). The three highest-risk groups are:
| Risk group | Examples of claims | Why they are prohibited |
|---|---|---|
| Generic environmental claims without a verifiable basis | “environmentally friendly", “green", “natural", “sustainable", “eco" | No recognised excellent environmental performance supported by evidence |
| Climate-neutrality claims based on emissions offsetting | “climate neutral", “carbon neutral", “net zero", “climate compensated" | Based on offsetting outside the value chain — the Directive expressly prohibits this |
| Proprietary labels that look like certifications | A proprietary “eco" or “sustainable" label, green leaves, circles bearing the word “green" | Not based on a certification scheme or established by a public authority |
But note: these prohibitions concern the new act (planned effective date: 27 September 2027). This does not mean that these claims are safe today. UOKiK has already challenged “green deliveries", “zero emissions" and “environmental neutrality" — under laws that have been in force for years.
UOKiK’s announcements from 2025–2026 show that the authority expects: quantitative data on materials and their percentage shares, information on the origin of materials, emissions calculation methodologies with the scope clearly defined, and clearly described criteria for private rating systems (UOKiK announcement — Allegro, DHL, DPD, InPost · UOKiK — L’Oréal Polska). A certificate or the involvement of experts is not automatically sufficient.
Who is liable: the manufacturer, distributor or retail chain
The answer: potentially all of them. The Act on Counteracting Unfair Commercial Practices (Article 4(1)) assigns liability to the business applying the practice, not exclusively to the manufacturer. The assessment takes into account how the product is presented, including its packaging and labelling (Article 5(1)–(3)) (Act on Counteracting Unfair Commercial Practices — ISAP).
What this means for each type of entity:
- Retail chain — if it publishes, approves or distributes an environmental claim, it bears its own liability. A retail chain is particularly exposed in the case of private-label products because it controls the entire message
- Manufacturer — is responsible for the content on the packaging and in marketing materials
- Importer/distributor — may be liable if it actively participates in product communications
- Product description in an online store — may be assessed as a separate marketing activity, independently of the content on the physical packaging
The manufacturer, importer and distributor may be held liable simultaneously. The argument “it is not my claim; it is the manufacturer’s claim" does not protect a retail chain that has published it in its online store.
Contact us if you need an assessment of which claims in your product portfolio need to be changed first.
What to do: three layers of inventory and priority for online channels
Instead of waiting until September 2027, address the issue in three steps.
Step 1: inventory your claims across three layers
Prepare a single table identifying the business owner of each claim:
| Layer | What you check | Who is responsible within the company |
|---|---|---|
| Packaging | Claims, labels and symbols on the physical product | Packaging Manager / Category Manager |
| Advertising and marketing materials | Creative assets, briefs, POS materials, catalogues | Head of Marketing / Brand Manager |
| Website and online product pages | Product descriptions, landing pages, ESG communications | Head of E-commerce / Content Manager |
Step 2: assess each claim under the rules in force today
Do not start with the new act. Start with the question: is this claim fair within the meaning of the Act on Counteracting Unfair Commercial Practices and the Act on Competition and Consumer Protection? If you do not have evidence supporting the claim, the risk is real right now.
Step 3: prioritise online channels
The CPC Network’s Common Understanding identifies claims made through online channels as the first enforcement priority. This is also the channel in which corrections are cheapest and fastest. You can amend a product description in an online store in one day. You cannot do the same with a print run of packaging.
Step 4: set a cut-off date for packaging orders
Compare your packaging order schedule with the length of your production cycle. Set a specific date after which you will no longer order packaging bearing a risky claim. Every print run ordered before 27 September 2027 with a claim that does not pass verification represents a potential cost of relabelling, disposal or withdrawal — compounded by the risk of a fine.
Step 5: identify the highest-risk group
Withdraw or substantiate with evidence, as a priority:
- Generic and unverifiable claims (e.g. “eco" or “green" without context)
- Climate-neutrality claims based on emissions offsetting
- Proprietary labels that visually resemble third-party certifications
Step 6: document your compliance timeline
This is not merely an internal document. It is evidence that may be used in potential proceedings before UOKiK to demonstrate that your plan is reasonable. Document decisions made during the transition period: what you reviewed, what you changed, what you planned and why you followed that order.
Penalties — how much do you really risk?
Until the new act implementing EmpCo enters into force, the legal basis for penalties for greenwashing remains the Act on Competition and Consumer Protection.
| Legal basis | Type of penalty | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| Article 106(1) of the Act on Competition and Consumer Protection | Penalty for breaching the prohibition on practices infringing the collective interests of consumers (Article 24) | Up to 10% of the turnover generated in the year preceding the imposition of the penalty |
| Article 106(2)(2) of the Act on Competition and Consumer Protection | Penalty for failing to provide information requested by the President of UOKiK or for providing false information | Up to 3% of turnover |
| Article 106(5)–(6) of the Act on Competition and Consumer Protection | Limit for small businesses (turnover ≤ EUR 100,000 or no turnover) | Up to EUR 10,000 |
(UOKiK — penalties · Article 106 of the Act on Competition and Consumer Protection)
UOKiK has indicated that a fine of up to 10% of turnover may be imposed for each challenged practice. This is not a single combined fine for the entire proceeding — each claim may be treated separately.
There are also indirect risks: orders to publish decisions, the need to withdraw or relabel a print run of packaging, and reputational damage to your ESG communications.
PPWR and EmpCo — how the obligations overlap
Alongside the EmpCo Directive, Regulation (EU) 2025/40 on packaging and packaging waste (PPWR) is also in force. It entered into force on 11 February 2025 and applies from 12 August 2026 (PPWR — EUR-Lex PL).
Among other matters, the PPWR regulates the labelling of the material composition of packaging and expressly states that the EmpCo Directive classifies non-compliant voluntary sustainability labels as an unfair commercial practice.
In practice, this means that a claim on packaging (e.g. “recyclable" or “made from recycled material") may be subject to the PPWR requirements concerning packaging properties and the EmpCo prohibitions concerning the accuracy of the message. Compliance with a minimum PPWR requirement should not be presented as a special environmental benefit of the product.
How to verify information about an “authority’s position"
The situation involving the alleged letter from UOKiK to the Council of Ministers is a good example of a broader problem: industry newsletters and conference discussions generate information that then takes on a life of its own.
Introduce one rule in your company: before making a purchasing or marketing decision based on information about an authority’s position, verify it at the source.
- Check UOKiK’s Public Information Bulletin — official announcements, decisions and positions
- Check transcripts of Sejm committee meetings — reports and records are available on the Sejm’s website
- If the information comes from a statement made by an official at a conference, establish the context. A comment by UOKiK’s Vice-President during a committee debate was taken out of context and circulated within the industry as a promise of a more lenient approach, when it was actually an argument against a transition period
- If the document cannot be identified, do not base your decision on it
Reviewing environmental claims with the support of a law firm
Postponing the act implementing EmpCo by one year does not change one thing: the prohibition on misleading consumers through environmental claims already applies today. UOKiK has confirmed this by bringing charges against seven companies.
We help companies in the FMCG, e-commerce and retail sectors organise their environmental communications at three levels:
- Rapid review of online channels — identifying the highest-risk claims in product descriptions, on websites and on product pages. These corrections can be implemented within days rather than months
- Full inventory of the claims portfolio — packaging, advertising, marketing materials and online channels. A single table assessing risk under both the rules in force today and the new act. A compliance schedule aligned with the packaging order cycle
- Comprehensive protection — an in-depth analysis of the act implementing EmpCo, a legal review procedure for “eco" creative assets before a print run is approved, training for marketing and purchasing departments, and supporting evidence in case of proceedings before UOKiK
Each of these levels starts with the same question: what is currently on your shelves, in your advertising and on your website — and do you have evidence to support it?
Contact us — we will assess where to start.
Summary
The one-year postponement of the act implementing EmpCo is a year to prepare, not a year to put the issue off. The prohibition on misleading environmental claims already applies today. UOKiK is enforcing it. Old stock does not provide automatic protection. The guidelines of the European Commission and the CPC Network are not a source of law and do not bind the Polish authority.
Start with online channels — that is where the risk is highest and corrections are cheapest. Set a cut-off date for orders of packaging bearing risky claims. Document your compliance plan. And do not base decisions on information that cannot be confirmed in a public document.
If you need a risk assessment of your environmental claims portfolio, contact us.
Frequently asked questions
If the act does not enter into force until 27 September 2027, what am I risking in 2026?
The prohibition on misleading consumers through environmental claims follows from the Act on Counteracting Unfair Commercial Practices and the Act on Competition and Consumer Protection — laws that have been in force for years. On this basis, the President of UOKiK brought charges against seven companies in 2025–2026 without waiting for the EmpCo Directive to be implemented. The penalty: up to 10% of turnover for each challenged practice.
Can I sell through packaging stock ordered before the rules change?
The CPC Network’s Common Understanding of June 2026 does not establish a general exemption for old stock. It identifies mitigating criteria (volume of stock, shelf life, technical feasibility of making changes), but these apply at the enforcement stage — they do not exempt businesses from the obligation to comply. The EmpCo Directive does not contain a grandfathering clause. As of the publication date, no EU Member State has confirmed a binding statutory sell-through mechanism.
Do the European Commission and CPC Network guidelines protect me in proceedings before UOKiK?
Not automatically. The Common Understanding is an administrative enforcement agreement within the CPC Network — it is not an act of EU law binding on businesses or national authorities. The European Commission’s FAQ and the document on old stock are guidelines. UOKiK may take them into account, but it is not required to do so.
Which claims should I withdraw first?
The three highest-risk groups are: (1) generic claims without a verifiable basis — “eco", “green" or “natural" without context and evidence; (2) climate-neutrality claims based on emissions offsetting outside the value chain; (3) proprietary labels that visually resemble third-party certifications but are not based on a recognised certification scheme.
Am I liable for a manufacturer’s claims if I am a distributor or retail chain?
The Act on Counteracting Unfair Commercial Practices assigns liability to the business applying the practice, not exclusively to the manufacturer. If you publish, approve or distribute an environmental claim — in a store, on a website or in marketing materials — you bear your own liability. A retail chain is particularly exposed in the case of private-label products. The manufacturer, importer and distributor may be held liable simultaneously.
Could the date of 27 September 2027 still change?
As of the publication date of this article, the act is before the Senate. The Senate may introduce amendments, which would return to the Sejm, after which the act would be submitted to the President for signature. A change to the date is unlikely but formally possible. Treat 27 September 2027 as a probable rather than definitive deadline — and monitor the final stage of the legislative process.
