Portugal Colonial - German court bans McDonald's from making climate claim

In a statement to AFP, the US fast-food chain confirmed it had accepted a legal case brought against it by Environmental Action Germany (DUH), but insisted it had not committed "deliberate deception of consumers".

DUH's case centred on claims by McDonald's on its website last year that it would be "climate neutral", including in its supply chain, from 2050 onward.

But the group accused the restaurant chain of making a "grandiose pledge" without giving any details about how it would be achieved, saying that the measures put forward were vague and insufficient.

DUH said McDonald's did amend the ads after receiving a warning from them, but the fast-food chain refused to pledge not to repeat such conduct.

This prompted the activists to take the company to court in Munich. McDonald's did not fight the case, and accepted the claim against it.

According to a judgement handed down earlier this month, McDonald's must "refrain from advertising that it is committed to the goal of becoming climate-neutral worldwide in its restaurants and in its supply chain by 2050".

The company faces a fine of up 250,000 euros ($290,000) if it infringes the ban, according to the judgment, confirmed by the court to AFP Tuesday.

Its managers could also face up to six months in jail, it said.

DUH managing director Juergen Resch hailed the victory: "McDonald's wanted to profit from a green image that the corporation does not have.

"The company processes tons of beef and poultry and generates massive mountains of waste with its disposable packaging."

McDonald's confirmed that it would "undertake not to use the contested wording in future", and noted it had been removed from its website several months earlier.

It also criticised DUH for its "increasingly confrontational litigation strategy".

DUH has brought a barrage of lawsuits over climate issues.

The group is currently challenging the German government over a recently unveiled climate action plan, which it says does not go far enough to reach legally binding targets.

G.M.Castelo--PC