直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Ad Law Buzz Blog

It’s Not Easy Being Green: NAD’s Latest Decision Highlights the Perils of Broad Environmental Claims

May 22, 2024

Authored and Edited by Jennifer E. Fried

When it comes to environmental claims, staying narrow invites less risk. While regulators are quick to strike down broad claims that a product is “green” or “environmentally friendly,” discrete, specific claims are often easier to stand behind. A recent NAD decision involving advertising by HoldOn Bags, Inc. serves as a reminder that sweeping green claims are tougher to substantiate than narrow ones.

Key Takeaways

    • Environmental claims are subject to particular scrutiny by regulators and competitors.
    • Even where an environmental benefit is supported by evidence, narrower messaging is subject to less risk than broad, sweeping claims.
    • While brands can tout a product's ability to be composted or recycled, extrapolating to broader sustainability messaging incurs additional risk.


NAD’s decision stemmed from a challenge, filed by The Glad Products Company, against HoldOn regarding various environmental claims. Notably, HoldOn came to the table with claim support in the form of expert opinions, independent certifications, and scientific evidence. NAD found that HoldOn had provided a reasonable basis for its claim that HoldOn’s compostable trash bags break down in composting facilities.

Despite green-lighting this composting claim, NAD—in keeping with NAD and FTC guidance—stopped short of blessing HoldOn’s broader claims. For example, NAD found that the advertiser had not supported its claim that HoldOn trash bags are “a sustainable replacement for traditional plastic bags.”

This outcome may seem counterintuitive on first glance. How could a bag that breaks down in composting facilities not be a “sustainable replacement” for a bag that does not? The reason lies in the difference between compostable and compsted. In NAD’s words, “the evidence only supports that [HoldOn bags break down] when the bags are disposed of as compost.” NAD noted that no evidence in the record showed HoldOn bags to be environmentally preferable when disposed of in non-composting environments. Thus, even the small step from compostability to “sustainable replacement” proved too far a leap from NAD’s perspective.

NAD likewise recommended that HoldOn discontinue other general environmental claims. For example, NAD found fault with the claims that “HoldOn bags are designed to reduce waste from traditional plastics, no matter how you take out your trash.” More generally, NAD recommended that HoldOn clearly and conspicuously disclose the circumstances in which the bag would degrade, compost, or “break down.” NAD’s HoldOn decision is the latest in a long line of NAD decisions that permit advertising a narrow, discrete benefit while prohibiting broader sustainability messaging.

Related Practices

Trademark and Brand Management

Advertising

Related Industries

Energy

Clean Energy and Renewables

Related Offices

Washington, DC

Contacts

Jennifer E. Fried
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4166
Email

Copyright © 2024 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 

DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Conference

2027 ABA-IPL Section Annual Meeting – IPLSPRING

April 14-15, 2027

Arlington

Conference

IP Life Sciences Forum 2026

December 13-15, 2026

Coral Gables

Seminar

Global Patent Strategies for Life Sciences and Chemical Innovations: Key Developments in Europe and the United States – Osaka

December 10, 2026

Osaka

Seminar

Global Patent Strategies for Life Sciences and Chemical Innovations: Key Developments in Europe and the United States – Tokyo

December 8, 2026

Tokyo

Conference

Licensing Executives Society Chinese Taipei – Annual Conference 2026

December 4, 2026

Taipei

Workshop

Winning Global IP Disputes: Litigation, SEP, and FRAND Strategies

November 20, 2026

Shanghai

Webinar

Data and Market Exclusivity: An Update on China’s New Law and Comparisons to the US and Europe

November 19, 2026

Webinar

Reception

2026 National Veterans Legal Services Program Annual Benefit Reception

November 19, 2026

Washington, DC

Workshop

From Innovation to Commercialization: U.S. Patent Strategies, Licensing, and IP Transaction Best Practices

November 17, 2026

Beijing

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP