Misleading through greenwashing with "apple leather": a tightrope act in online retail under competition law
Vegan materials, sustainability and innovation - in times of environmentally conscious consumption, many companies use creative terms to market their products attractively. But where does marketing end and anti-competitive misrepresentation begin? This question is at the center of a recent and groundbreaking decision by the Higher Regional Court of Cologne (Judgment of 04.07.2025 - 6 U 51/25)which dealt with the term "apple leather" for dog collars.
The judges clarified that anyone selling a product made of plastic may not advertise it as "apple leather" if this gives the consumer the impression that it is - even partially - genuine leather. The ruling sheds light on the limits of creative advertising language and is of great importance for suppliers of (supposedly) sustainable products.
The legal background: Misleading commercial acts pursuant to Section 5 UWG
According to Section 5 (1) and (2) UWG, anyone who carries out a misleading commercial act is acting unfairly, in particular if false or misleading statements are made about essential characteristics of the goods - such as the material properties. This does not depend on the subjective intention of the advertiser, but on the objective perception of the average informed, reasonably observant consumer.
Advertising with materials that are combined with the term "leather" (e.g. "textile leather", "artificial leather", "rhubarb leather") is often the focus of the courts. The decisive factor is always whether the targeted public can be misled about the nature, quality or origin of the advertised goods.
The case before the Cologne Higher Regional Court: dog collars made of PVC and apple pomace
The defendant - a well-known supplier of dog accessories - marketed on its website under the prominently highlighted designation "Apple leather" Dog collars and leads. However, these were made entirely of plastic, with the addition of apple residue from fruit juice production. It was only mentioned in a fold-out section of the product description that the material was vegan.
A trade association of the leather processing industry warned the company that the advertising was misleading and ultimately applied for an injunction. While the Cologne Regional Court rejected the application at first instance, the Cologne Higher Regional Court ruled in favor of the association on appeal.
The legal assessment: Why "apple leather" deceives consumers
- Consumer expectations of the term "leather"
According to established case law, the term "Leather" In common parlance, the term "suede" refers to a natural product of animal origin - regardless of whether it has been tanned, dyed or processed. Compound terms such as "suede", "nappa leather" or "split leather" also continue to suggest an animal-based material.
According to the court, the term "apple leather" therefore also suggests that leather - possibly with a vegetable additive - has been processed. The addition "apple" is not understood as a reference to a leather-free alternative, but as a descriptive indication of a particular type of leather.
- No clarification in the eye-catcher - hidden clues are not enough
The Higher Regional Court of Cologne expressly stated that a hidden reference to the vegan composition in the "Product description" section is not suitable to nullify the misleading effect of the eye-catcher "apple leather". The term was used without any explanatory addition on the product overview and product detail page.
According to the court, an effective clarification would have Immediately eye-catching must be made. Anyone who relies on bold terms such as "apple leather" must also disclose at the same level that it is not animal leather. A correction "in the small print" is not enough.
- Business relevance of the misleading statement
The claim "apple leather" is likely to mislead consumers into making a commercial decision that they would not have made otherwise. The judges emphasize that it is sufficient if the consumer - on the basis of the misconception - takes a closer look at the product or places it in the shopping basket. An actual purchase is not necessary.
Even the appearance (e.g. blue color of the collar) or fantasy names such as "Hexa" did nothing to change the misleading effect - especially since the black clasp had a classic leather look.
- Misleading despite industry practice
Even if terms such as "apple leather" are now circulating on the market, this does not protect the user from a misleading test. The judges expressly rejected the defendant's reference to Google results or industry articles. The only decisive factor is how a relevant proportion of consumers understand the term.
Conclusion and recommended action for suppliers: Avoid misleading information through clear communication - if it says leather on it, there must be leather in it!
The ruling by the Higher Regional Court of Cologne provides clarity for suppliers of vegan, sustainable or innovative materials: Anyone who advertises with the term "leather" must also supply leather - or clearly state that it is a leather-free imitation.
Our recommendation for action:
- Avoid misleading terms such as "apple leather", "fruit leather" or "vegan leather"if it is not directly explained that it does not contain genuine leather.
- Always combine eye-catching terms with a clear, unambiguous message in the eye-catchere.g. "vegan imitation leather made from apple pomace".
- Check your advertising texts and product descriptions regularly for misleading potentialespecially with materials that are visually or conceptually reminiscent of classic natural materials.
Do you sell vegan or sustainable products? We check your advertising for legal compliance!
AVANTCORE RECHTSANWÄLTE in Stuttgart is specialized in Competition Law and advises manufacturers, retailers and start-ups on the legally compliant design of Product advertising. Whether Online store, packaging text or Social media campaign - we help you to avoid misleading risks and Warnings to prevent.
EN 
DE