How the screen decides what to flag.
Every flag in your report traces back to a specific provision of the directive or the Commission's guidance on it. Here is exactly what the tool checks, what it can't check, and where its limits are — so you can judge the output for yourself.
Content current as of 9 July 2026.
Paste, match, trace, rewrite.
You paste your copy
Marketing lines, packaging text, a list of claims. Nothing is read except the wording you submit and the context you give (markets, certifications held).
We scan against a claim dictionary
The text is matched against a dictionary of regulated claim patterns drawn from the directive's blacklist and the Commission's guidance.
Each match traces to a rule
Every flagged claim is tied to the blacklist entry or UCPD provision it engages, and rewritten into a form that would not trip that rule.
The four claim patterns it looks for.
The screen is organised around the categories the directive singles out. A phrase can match more than one.
Vague environmental virtue words
"Eco-friendly", "green", "environmentally conscious", "natural" and the like — flagged unless you hold a recognised excellent-performance certification (EU Ecolabel, an ISO 14024 Type I scheme). Traced to the ban on generic environmental claims added to the UCPD blacklist.
Neutrality built on carbon credits
"Carbon neutral", "climate neutral", "CO2 compensated" where the basis is offsetting. Traced to the blacklist entry banning neutrality claims that rely on emissions offsetting, regardless of credit quality.
In-house sustainability badges
Your own "eco" mark or seal not based on a certification or established by public authorities. Traced to the ban on displaying a sustainability label that isn't from an official or accredited scheme.
Claims and future targets without proof
Broad performance claims presented without accessible evidence, and future-dated environmental pledges ("net zero by 2030") that aren't backed by a clear, verifiable plan. Traced to the provisions requiring environmental claims — including forward-looking ones — to be substantiated.
What the screen does not do.
Being honest about the boundaries is the point of the product. Read these before you rely on a report.
It screens wording, not imagery.
The tool reads text. The directive and the Commission's guidance make clear that visuals — a leaf motif, a green palette, a brand or product name — can themselves be environmental claims. The report reminds you to review your imagery and labels, but it cannot assess an image it can't see. That's on you and your designers.
The Commission's FAQ is guidance, not law.
Part of the screen leans on the European Commission's questions-and-answers on the directive. That guidance reflects the Commission's view; it is explicitly non-binding. It's a strong signal of how the rules are meant to read, but it is not itself the law.
Only the CJEU interprets with binding force.
How any provision applies to your specific claim is ultimately a question of law. Only the Court of Justice of the European Union can interpret the directive with binding force, and national courts and authorities enforce it. A flag from this tool is a well-founded warning, not a verdict.
It is not a definitive classification.
A claim marked "banned" is one the screen judges to match a prohibited pattern; a claim not flagged is not thereby certified legal. Transposition varies by member state, facts matter, and edge cases exist. Treat the report as a prioritised starting point for your team and your counsel — not a compliance certificate.