The H&M greenwashing lawsuits are a set of U.S. class actions and European regulatory actions filed since 2022 accusing the fast-fashion retailer of misleading shoppers about how environmentally friendly its clothing really is. Two of the three U.S. cases have ended: one was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice, another was thrown out by a federal judge. A third, filed by Missouri shopper Randall Sally, survived a partial motion to dismiss in February 2026 and is still moving forward, though now limited to two specific garments he bought. Regulators in the Netherlands and Norway reached their own resolutions with H&M, prompting the company to strip its “Conscious Choice” label and Higg-based environmental scorecards from products worldwide.
What the Lawsuits Accused H&M of Doing
Three separate pieces of H&M’s marketing drew legal fire.
The first was a set of product-page “Sustainability Profiles,” or environmental scorecards, built on the Higg Material Sustainability Index. A July 2022 Quartz investigation reported that more than half of the scorecards overstated the environmental performance of the products they described.1Forbes. H&M Case Shows How Greenwashing Breaks Brand Promise One dress was marketed as using 20% less water than average; the underlying data showed it actually used 20% more. Another product was marketed as using 30% less water when the Higg data showed 31% more.2ClassAction.org. Commodore v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz LP Complaint
The second was the “Conscious Choice” collection, sold with green hangtags and nature-themed imagery and described as containing “at least 50% of more sustainable materials” such as organic cotton or recycled polyester. Plaintiffs argued that the branding suggested products were genuinely sustainable when the collection in fact contained a higher share of synthetics than H&M’s regular line.3ClassAction.org. Lizama et al. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz LP Complaint
The third was narrower and more concrete: green hangtags on individual garments stating the item was made with “recycled” or “organic” materials. The Sally complaint alleged that, on the two products the plaintiff bought and tested, the materials were actually virgin synthetic or conventionally grown fibers.4Truth in Advertising. Sally v. H&M Second Amended Class Action Complaint
Commodore v. H&M: Withdrawn
Chelsea Commodore filed the first case on July 22, 2022, in the Southern District of New York, targeting the Higg-based scorecards and H&M’s in-store garment recycling program.2ClassAction.org. Commodore v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz LP Complaint Rakeedha Scarlett joined as a second plaintiff in January 2023, and the amended complaint proposed a nationwide class and a New York subclass.5Truth in Advertising. Commodore v. H&M First Amended Class Action Complaint The plaintiffs then voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning they cannot refile it. No public explanation was given.6Truth in Advertising. H&M’s Sustainability Claims
Lizama v. H&M: Dismissed
Abraham Lizama and Marc Doten filed the second case on November 3, 2022, in the Eastern District of Missouri, focused on the “Conscious Choice” collection. It alleged violations of Missouri’s Merchandising Practices Act, California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California’s False Advertising Law, and California’s Unfair Competition Law, along with unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud.3ClassAction.org. Lizama et al. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz LP Complaint
On May 12, 2023, U.S. District Judge Rodney Sippel dismissed the entire case. Doten’s claims failed for lack of personal jurisdiction; Lizama’s failed to state a claim.7GovInfo. Lizama v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz LP, Memorandum and Order The court held that H&M never claimed its products were unconditionally “sustainable” or “environmentally friendly.” It used the qualified phrase “more sustainable materials” and provided detailed composition information on its website. No reasonable consumer, the judge concluded, would read that qualified language as a blanket sustainability claim.8The Fashion Law. H&M Escapes Lawsuit Accusing It of Greenwashing Its Fast Fashion Wares Leave to amend was not granted, and final judgment was entered the same day.9CourtListener. Lizama v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz LP Docket
Legal commentators treated the ruling as a possible playbook for retailers defending greenwashing claims: qualified, comparative language paired with detailed supporting information can survive a motion to dismiss.10Green Building Law Update. H&M Wins Dismissal of Greenwashing Lawsuit
Sally v. H&M: Still Active
Randall Sally filed his class action in the Eastern District of Missouri in late 2023. Rather than attacking vague terms, the complaint pointed to specific factual claims on physical hangtags: that particular garments were made with “recycled” or “organic” materials when, Sally alleged, independent testing showed otherwise. The case raised claims under Missouri’s Merchandising Practices Act, breach of express and implied warranty, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud.4Truth in Advertising. Sally v. H&M Second Amended Class Action Complaint
On February 19, 2026, Judge Cristian M. Stevens granted H&M’s motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part.11Justia. Sally v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz LP, Memorandum and Order Claims relying on H&M’s website and general marketing materials were dismissed because Sally hadn’t described them with the specificity fraud pleading requires. Claims tied to the physical green hangtags on the two products he actually bought — a Satin Resort Shirt in Bright Blue and an ankle-length Satin Skirt in Black — survived. The court found Sally had “sufficiently alleged claims for concealment and unfair practices” as to those items.12Law.com. Greenwashing Allegations Against H&M Over Recycled Clothing Claim Can Proceed, Fed Judge Rules
The court also struck the class allegations, ruling that Sally lacked standing to sue over products he did not buy. H&M had argued that Sally’s claim of independently testing the materials was a “logical impossibility”; the court rejected that argument. A request for leave to further amend was denied because Sally did not describe what the amended complaint would say.11Justia. Sally v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz LP, Memorandum and Order The case now proceeds as an individual action about those two garments.
What European Regulators Did
The Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) investigated H&M’s use of terms like “Conscious” and “Ecodesign” and concluded that the claims were “unclear and insufficiently substantiated.”13Business of Fashion. H&M, Decathlon to Make Donations, Dial Back Sustainability Claims to Avoid Dutch Greenwashing Crackdown Under an agreement reached in September 2022, H&M pulled the “Conscious Choice” indicator from its online shops worldwide, removed the “more-sustainable materials” heading from product descriptions, and donated €500,000 to fashion-sustainability organizations. In exchange, the ACM held off on formal sanctions and said it would monitor the company’s advertising for two years.14ESG Today. H&M to Remove Sustainability Labels From Products Following Investigation by Regulator H&M said the concerns did not involve “false information.”
The Norwegian Consumer Authority had raised concerns as early as 2019 and, in June 2022, ruled that H&M’s consumer-facing use of the Higg Index was misleading, warning of possible economic sanctions if the practice did not stop by that September.15PCIAW. Higg Index Paused H&M The Sustainable Apparel Coalition suspended its consumer-facing transparency program globally on June 27, 2022.16Quartz. The Controversial Higg Sustainability Index Is Being Suspended In October 2022, the Norwegian and Dutch authorities jointly issued industry guidance on substantiating environmental marketing claims.17Norwegian Consumer Authority. Consumer Authorities Issue Guidance on Environmental Claims to the Textile Industry
What H&M Changed
After the Quartz investigation, H&M removed the Higg-based scorecards from its website. After the ACM settlement, it pulled the “Conscious Choice” branding from its global online shops and committed to describing specific sustainability attributes of individual products rather than using broad labels.14ESG Today. H&M to Remove Sustainability Labels From Products Following Investigation by Regulator
How New EU Rules Would Treat the Same Marketing
The EU’s Directive Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition, adopted in March 2024, directly targets the kind of language at issue in the H&M cases. It prohibits generic, unsubstantiated terms like “sustainable,” “conscious,” or “responsible” unless the company can demonstrate recognized excellent environmental and social performance. It bans sustainability labels not based on independent, third-party certification, and forbids claims of environmental neutrality based solely on carbon offsets.18Inside EU Life Sciences. EU Adopts New Rules on Greenwashing and Social Impact Claims Member states must transpose the directive into national law by March 27, 2026, with enforcement starting September 27, 2026. Violations can draw fines of up to 4% of annual turnover.19Enterprise Ireland. Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition
For now, the Sally case in Missouri remains the only active U.S. lawsuit against H&M over greenwashing, narrowed to two specific products and the factual question of whether the fibers inside them matched the words on the hangtag.