The law you're already under
What the ACL requires, and where the EU directive goes further
Every environmental or sustainability claim you make, on your website, a booking platform, a brochure, or social media, has to be accurate, evidenced, and not misleading under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). This isn't new law. It already applies to every Australian tourism business, including those with no overseas visitors at all.
Both regulators define an 'environmental claim' broadly: words, images, colours, logos, and brand names all count if they create an environmental impression in a consumer's mind. But the two regimes test claims differently. The ACL asks whether a claim is misleading in context, assessed case by case. The EU directive goes further and bans several specific practices outright, with no case-by-case test at all.
| Practice |
Under the ACL |
Under the EU directive, if you also market to Europe |
| "Eco-friendly" or "green" used generically | High-risk. Must be specific and evidenced to avoid a misleading-conduct finding | Banned outright unless you can demonstrate recognised excellent environmental performance for that specific claim |
| Self-declared "sustainable", no third-party check | Needs genuine, verifiable evidence. Weaker than certification, but not automatically unlawful | Caught by the same generic-claim ban above: an unsubstantiated claim is banned outright, not just high-risk |
| "Carbon neutral" based on offsets | Must disclose reliance on offsets versus direct reductions, and the offsets' quality. An unqualified claim is high-risk | Banned outright. No case-by-case test: an offset-based neutrality claim is automatically treated as misleading |
| Your own green badge or sustainability logo | Not banned. Treated as high-risk unless clearly distinguished from independent certification | Banned outright unless the label comes from a recognised certification scheme or a public authority |
| Claiming the whole product or business is green when only one part is | Assessed on the overall impression created. Can mislead if the real scope isn't made clear | Banned outright: a claim about an entire product or business when it concerns only one aspect or activity |
| Vague future pledge: "working towards net zero" | Needs reasonable grounds and a specific plan you can point to if challenged | Must be a specific, time-bound plan; the European Commission's guidance expects independent verification too |
The ACCC's eight principles
The ACCC's guide, Making environmental claims: a guide for business, sets out eight principles: make accurate and truthful claims, have evidence to back them up, don't hide or omit important information, explain any conditions or qualifications, avoid broad and unqualified claims, use clear and easy to understand language, make sure visual elements don't give the wrong impression, and be direct and open about your sustainability transition. Since 28 March 2026, the maximum corporate penalty for breaching the ACL is the greatest of $100 million, three times the benefit gained from the conduct, or 30% of turnover during the breach period, on top of the reputational cost of an ACCC investigation.
More reform may be coming
A Senate inquiry into greenwashing, examining whether Australia needs its own dedicated anti-greenwashing legislation, is due to report on 2 November 2026. Its findings could lead to further domestic reform, separate from anything happening in Europe.
