Introduction
On October 23, 2025, the Judicial Tribunal of Paris (Tribunal judiciaire de Paris) found in Greenpeace France and Others v. TotalEnergies SE and TotalEnergies Electricité et Gaz France that TotalEnergies and its French subsidiary engaged in misleading environmental advertising. For the first time, a court has held a major oil and gas company accountable for greenwashing its climate strategy. Specifically, TotalEnergies’ claims about its “ambition to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050” and to become “a major player in the energy transition” were found to breach consumer protection law.
The decision follows legal action initiated in 2022 by Greenpeace France, Notre Affaire à Tous, and Les Amis de la Terre France, with the support of ClientEarth. The lawsuit targeted the oil and gas company’s communications campaign surrounding its name change from Total to TotalEnergies, which occurred in 2021.
This blog post analyses the ruling and its relevance for the international climate litigation landscape.
The Claims and the Defense
In March 2022, three NGOs – Greenpeace France, Notre Affaire à Tous and Les Amis de la Terre France – filed a complaint before the Judicial Tribunal of Paris, accusing TotalEnergies and TotalEnergies Electricité et Gaz France (together “TotalEnergies”) of misleading and unfair commercial practices prohibited by Articles L.121-1 et seq. of the French Consumer Code (transposing the 2005 European Union Unfair Commercial Practices Directive). The allegations targeted three categories of claims made by TotalEnergies regarding its climate strategy, the environmental benefits of fossil gas, and the purported mitigation potential of agrofuels.
First, the plaintiffs alleged that the company’s carbon neutrality objective lacked scientific grounding, arguing that it omitted certain direct (Scope 1) and energy-related (Scope 2) emissions, excluded indirect value-chain emissions (Scope 3), and failed to disclose its reliance on carbon-offsetting mechanisms. Moreover, they contended that the company’s continued investment in fossil fuel production was inconsistent with both its commitment to becoming a major player in the energy transition and a Paris Agreement-aligned emissions trajectory. Second, the plaintiffs argued that TotalEnergies misled consumers by associating fossil gas with clean energy, branding it as “natural,” “cheap,” and “necessary” for the energy transition. Third, the plaintiffs asserted that the claims relating to agrofuels were misleading because TotalEnergies failed to disclose the environmental impacts associated with biomass energy products.
TotalEnergies responded by arguing that most of the claims did not constitute commercial practices, but rather institutional communications, lacking a direct link to consumers. Additionally, the company emphasized the aspirational nature of its climate commitments as expressed through the phrase “ambition to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 and to become a major player in the energy transition.” Finally, TotalEnergies contended that “carbon neutrality” lacks a universally accepted definition or mitigation pathway applicable to private actors.
The Ruling
After three years of proceedings, the Judicial Tribunal of Paris issued a landmark ruling, finding that TotalEnergies’ claims relating to carbon neutrality and energy transition constituted misleading commercial practices, prohibited under Articles L.121-2 and L.121-3 of the French Consumer Code. The Code recognizes that a commercial practice may be misleading both by action and by omission. A practice is misleading by action when it is based on false statements or claims likely to deceive consumers, including those relating to a product’s or service’s environmental impact (Article L.121-2). It is misleading by omission when it omits, conceals, or presents in an unclear or ambiguous manner material information that consumers need to make an informed decision (Article L.121-3).
Of the three categories of claims brought by the plaintiffs (see previous section), the Tribunal examined only those relating to TotalEnergies’ climate strategy, as these were the only statements that clearly qualified as commercial communications intended to influence consumer purchasing decisions.
Concerning TotalEnergies’ claim to become a major player in the energy transition and achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, the Tribunal rejected the argument that these statements were merely aspirational. It found that they conveyed a present and concrete commitment, and that using the term “ambition” rather than “commitment” did not materially alter the message perceived by consumers.
On the lack of a universally agreed notion of carbon neutrality, the Tribunal referred to its scientific definition under the Paris Agreement and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, namely a balance between carbon emissions and carbon absorption. Since TotalEnergies itself frequently referred to these international frameworks, the Tribunal concluded that the concept of planetary carbon neutrality constituted the relevant point of reference. By framing its analysis of misleading claims within the context of the Paris Agreement and IPCC definitions, the Tribunal effectively aligned domestic consumer law with international climate science, signaling an emerging cross-pollination between the climate and consumer protection regulatory regimes.
Regarding TotalEnergies’ dual objective of achieving carbon neutrality and being a major player in the energy transition, the Tribunal found that the company’s communication was misleading to consumers, as it relied on internal mitigation scenarios that were not disclosed to the public. Although it fell outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to assess the credibility or accuracy of such carbon neutral-oriented scenarios (including the group’s intention to pursue investments in fossil fuels), (including the group’s intention to pursue investments in fossil fuels) the Tribunal held that by omitting key information about the assumptions underpinning its claims, TotalEnergies misled consumers into believing that purchasing its products or services contributed to a low-carbon economy.
By contrast, the claims relating to fossil gas and agrofuels were dismissed as insufficiently connected to the promotion or sale of products or services and therefore fell outside the scope of the action brought by the plaintiffs, which focused on misleading commercial practices.
Having established that the claims on carbon neutrality and the company’s role in the energy transition amounted to misleading commercial practices, the Tribunal ordered, inter alia, the cessation of the misleading claims, the publication of the judgment on TotalEnergies’ website for 180 days, and the payment of €15,000 in total for legal costs. Additionally, TotalEnergies must pay €8,000 to each NGO in compensation for the harm caused to the collective environmental interests that the associations are legally recognized to protect (Article L.142-2 of the Environmental Code). The ruling is immediately enforceable and TotalEnergies stated that it will not appeal the judgment.
Holding Greenwashers Accountable: The Paris Tribunal Paves the Way
This ruling stands as a landmark in both national and international efforts to curb corporate greenwashing. In the words of Justine Ripoll, representative of Notre Affaire à Tous: “[French courts] are sending a clear message: climate misinformation is not an acceptable business strategy. Citizens have a right to honest information, and fossil fuel companies must be held accountable for the reality of their activities.”
Despite the ongoing evolution of the European Union’s consumer protection framework – including the uncertain future of the Green Claims Directive – the French Tribunal made multiple references to the not-yet-implemented Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive, which specifies the conditions under which product-related environmental claims may be deemed misleading. The Directive amends the list of prohibited practices (Annex I of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive) by adding two key elements: i) generic environmental claims that are not supported by recognised excellent environmental performance and ii) claims based on offsetting practices that are not grounded in the product’s life-cycle impact. While the Directive will only become legally binding in 2026, the Paris Tribunal has already developed its legal reasoning around it, signaling that forward-looking environmental claims must be based on clear and verifiable mitigation plans to be deemed legally compliant.
Against this evolving policy background, the Paris ruling adds to a growing wave of recent decisions condemning vague and unsubstantiated claims. In 2024, the Amsterdam District Court ruled that KLM’s “Fly Responsibly” carbon-offsetting claims lacked adequate, verifiable evidence, while the Swiss Fairness Commission reached similar conclusions regarding the 2022 FIFA World Cup’s emissions calculations and offsetting practices.
These cases share a common foundation in consumer protection law: while not the only legal basis for misleading claims allegations, it remains frequently invoked across jurisdictions. As companies worldwide increasingly face consumer-related accusations, the French ruling sends a strong message that extends well beyond European borders: courts are increasingly prepared to sanction misleading climate representations and to hold their authors accountable.
Elena Marro
Elena is a Law PhD Researcher at the European University Institute (EUI), Italy.
