Italy - Market Insights

ESG litigation in Italy: landmark cases and future perspectives

Environmental, social and governance (ESG) litigation in Italy is emerging as a significant legal frontier, driven by the interplay of regulatory enforcement by the Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) and civil court actions addressing greenwashing and climate liability. Recent landmark cases — including Greenpeace v. ENI and AGCM’s sanctions on GLS and Armani — mark a turning point, positioning Italy among the leading European jurisdictions in shaping corporate accountability on ESG matters.

Introduction

The Italian legal landscape is undergoing a significant transformation, driven by growing market, legislative and public attention to ESG issues, giving rise to an expanding area of disputes known as ESG litigation.

In the current framework, ESG litigation in Italy follows two main paths:

• First, from a regulatory perspective, the AGCM (en.agcm.it/en/) has gained a key institutional role in tackling misleading ESG-related claims, classifying them as unfair commercial practices under Legislative Decree No. 206/2005 (Italian “Consumer Code”, implementing EU Directive 2005/29/EC). In this framework, the AGCM has enforced several proceedings against companies that have influenced consumers’ economic decisions and undermined the transparency and reliability of marketing communication by adopting generic, unverifiable or potentially misleading environmental or ethical claims.
• Second, a parallel stream of ESG litigation is being brought before civil courts, promoted by individuals, industry associations and non-governmental organisations. These disputes range from civil liability claims for environmental and climate-related damages to unfair competition cases involving greenwashing or deceptive advertising.

The Advertising Standards Authority, which operates within the Advertising Self-Regulation Institute, also plays a significant role. The Institute sets standards for advertising to ensure its honesty, truthfulness and fairness in the interests of consumer protection and fair competition as well as of advertising per se. Anyone who believes they have suffered damage because of advertising that violates the Code of Self-Regulation may file a complaint before the Jury, provided that the advertiser is bound by the Code through formal clauses of adherence or acceptance.

In this context, consumer associations are playing an increasingly active part, particularly in light of the recent implementation of representative actions under EU Directive 2020/1828, transposed into Italian law through Articles 140-ter et seq. of the Italian Consumer Code. These organisations have started using collective judicial remedies, including injunctive and compensatory actions, to challenge non-transparent corporate communications and protect consumers against conduct detrimental to the public interest.

Cases before the AGCM

Within the regulatory dimension of ESG litigation, particular attention is given to misleading communication concerning environmental and social claims.

Among the most common issues addressed by the AGCM is the phenomenon of greenwashing, which consists of adopting communication strategies aimed at presenting a company’s environmental impact in an unjustifiably positive light. Such conduct constitutes misleading practices under Articles 21–23 of the Italian Consumer Code, which prohibits misleading commercial practices, if they are likely to distort the consumer’s perception of essential product characteristics.

In this regard, the Authority recently emphasised the importance of correctly communicating companies’ commitment to mitigate the negative effects of their activities in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, for instance, in July 2025, the AGCM successfully concluded a moral suasion case against Acqua Minerale San Benedetto (see en.agcm.it/en/media/press-releases/2026/8/PS12596) concerning the potentially misleading environmental claims used to promote its Ecogreen product line. The company removed the claim “CO₂ Impatto Zero” (zero CO₂ impact) from the label, packaging and all commercial communications (including TV commercials and the website), and modified the environmental claims used and the graphic elements that referred to natural elements.

Furthermore, as part of its initiatives against greenwashing, in February 2025, the AGCM fined GLS EUR 8 million for misleading “Climate Protect” advertising and unfair commercial practices (see en.agcm.it/en/media/press-releases/2025/2/PS12525). The Authority found that the advertising claims used by the GLS group companies as part of the “Climate Protect” programme, through which GLS built its green image, constituted an unfair commercial practice under Articles 20, 21, 22 and 26(f) of the Italian Consumer Code. It appeared that the companies had shifted the financial costs of the programme to subscribers and affiliated shippers. They had also collected contributions exceeding the actual implementation costs. In addition, communications sent to subscribers and affiliated companies and CO₂ emission offset certificates released for shipments were found to be misleading, ambiguous and untruthful.

The AGCM also focused on the issue of supply chain responsibility and of the consistency between a company’s public commitments and the actual working conditions of employees. The Authority stated that these declarations are significant under Article 21 of the Consumer Code and that, if not supported by objective evidence — such as cases of labour exploitation or other serious irregularities — they may constitute misleading commercial practices as they are likely to influence the economic choices of the average consumer; in particular, consumers guided by values related to sustainability and social responsibility. For instance, in the Armani case, the AGCM, by decision of 29 July 2025, sanctioned the company with a EUR 70,000 fine for the significant gap existing between its stated commitments to ethics, legality and transparency and the actual conditions observed within its supply chain (see en.agcm.it/en/media/press-releases/2025/8/PS12793).

Cases before the Judiciary Courts

Alongside administrative proceedings, ESG litigation is increasingly developing before ordinary civil courts, through actions brought by individuals, associations, or competing businesses.

A landmark decision is the ruling of the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation No. 20381 of 21 July 2025 issued in the case filed by Greenpeace, ReCommon and 12 private citizens against ENI s.p.a. in the context of Italian climate litigation (see www.greenpeace.org/italy/comunicato-stampa/17743/causa-civile-contro-eni-presentata-da-greenpeace-italia-recommon-e-12-cittadine-e-cittadini-italiani-loperato-della-societa-peggiora-la-crisi-climatica-e-viola-i-diritti-umani/). With this decision, the Supreme Court recognised the jurisdiction of the Italian courts, stating the “justiciability” of climate issues and overcoming the objection that these matters fall only within the political and institutional sphere. The Court also set out the criteria for establishing jurisdiction in Italy, based on EU jurisdiction principles. This decision is highly significant in the ESG litigation landscape as it confirms that private companies may be held civilly liable in national courts for climate-related harms. It broadens access to justice for affected individuals and communities and reinforces the legal relevance of corporate climate governance and emission accountability.

Similar developments have emerged in other jurisdictions, such as Milieudefensie v. Shell (The Netherlands) (see www.climatecasechart.com/document/milieudefensie-et-al-v-royal-dutch-shell-plc_c3e4), where the Hague District Court ordered Shell to reduce its global CO₂ emissions by 45% by 2030, and Notre Affaire à Tous v. TotalEnergies (France), which emphasised corporate due diligence obligations under the French Duty of Vigilance Law (see www.climatecasechart.com/document/notre-affaire-a-tous-and-others-v-total_85ea).

Legal disputes concerning ESG issues before the courts also involved cases of unfair competition between companies in relation to “greenwashing” and misleading communications regarding sustainability. The first and leading case on greenwashing advertising is Alcantara v. Miko, where Alcantara brought an urgent proceeding under Article 700 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure before the Court of Gorizia, alleging misleading advertising about the environmental sustainability of its products.

By order dated 25 November 2021, the Court acknowledged the misleading nature of part of the advertising and consequently ordered Miko to refrain from continuing to spread misleading commercial messages concerning the sustainability and environmental benefits of its products. Although this decision represented an important milestone, as it affirmed the need to address and correct misleading greenwashing practices and emphasised the value of promoting clear and truthful communication, it was revoked for lack of urgency at the appeal stage.

In this context, consumer associations also play an important role by using collective legal remedies to ensure the transparency and accuracy of corporate communications relating to ESG criteria, in defence of the collective interests of consumers. Indeed, there has recently been an outgrowth of cases brought before Civil Courts underlining the increasing activism of consumer associations as key players in establishing ethical and legal standards in commercial communication, particularly in the context of green claims and greenwashing (see codici.org/2020/04/04/dove-siamo/). Even though some of such cases did not reach a final judgment, it is also true that settlement agreements might actually play an important role in influencing and addressing both advertisers’ attention and proper communication on ESG, sustainability and environmental issues.

Final considerations

As evidenced by the cases examined, ESG litigation in Italy has moved beyond its early stages and is now a rapidly expanding phenomenon that is expected to have a significant impact for businesses. Indeed, the awakening interest of the Italian Competition Authority in misleading environmental and social claims, together with the courts’ willingness to recognise forms of liability linked to climate change and ESG-related unfair competition, reflects a rapidly evolving legal landscape.

In this context, the impact of litigation is often immediate and extends far beyond the final judgment. Even innovative ESG lawsuits can cause reputational and financial damage regardless of their outcome.

Consequently, businesses must integrate ESG principles into their corporate strategy not merely as a matter of reputation or market positioning, but as a fundamental element of legal risk management. Failure to proactively manage ESG risks and use available remedies can weaken a company’s legal position in any potential disputes. In the face of increasing attention from regulators, empowered stakeholders and an increasingly receptive judiciary, the adoption of transparent, verifiable, and consistent sustainability policies, based on a thorough understanding of the operational realities of the business, has become an imperative to mitigate the rising tide of ESG litigation.