References to the environment in advertising are legitimate if there is objective evidence to support them

Advertising that highlights the environmental benefits of tap water compared to bottled water is not, in itself, greenwashing . This was confirmed by the Court of Cassation in Order No. 18269 of 6 June 2026, upholding the argument of the counter-claimant, a company manufacturing taps (Grohe Spa), and is set to become a landmark ruling in litigation concerning so-called ‘green claims’, that is, advertising messages that refer to sustainability, environmental protection and the reduction of ecological impact.

However, according to the appellant federation (Mineracqua – Italian Federation of Natural Mineral and Spring Water Industries), those messages constituted a classic case of greenwashing: generic, suggestive environmental claims lacking adequate scientific support, capable of leading the consumer to believe that the product is environmentally preferable without any real evidence to back up the claims made.

The Court of Cassation, on the other hand, observed that the advert does not attribute non-existent environmental qualities to the product, but highlights an objective fact: using tap water via a domestic system reduces the consumption of plastic bottles and, consequently, the environmental impact associated with their production, distribution, collection and recycling.

The order also refers to the regulatory and institutional context, noting that the legislator itself has encouraged the uptake of domestic water treatment systems through specific tax incentives introduced specifically to promote the reduction of single-use plastic. Similarly, numerous public campaigns promote the consumption of tap water as a means of environmental sustainability.

In this context, according to the Supreme Court, the reference to reduced plastic use does not constitute a misleading statement or an unlawful denigration of the mineral water sector, but rather a legitimate highlighting of a genuine benefit.