Enforcement starts 27 September 2026
Find the green claims
that will cost you after September 2026.
Directive 2024/825 rewrites what an online shop is allowed to say about the environment. Paste a URL, some copy or an image and see which of your claims fall foul of it — with the legal basis and a rewrite for each one.
We read up to 10 pages of HTML text, follow your robots.txt, and never execute your scripts.
Free, no account. Rate limited to 5 site scans per hour per address.
92
restricted terms in the lexicon
8
claim categories covered
8
national regimes mapped
10
pages read per site scan
How it works
From a URL to something you can act on
Five steps. Detection is deterministic and traceable to a sentence; only the sifting and the wording are left to a model, and the report shows you which is which.
Read
We fetch the HTML your visitors get, follow your robots.txt, and pull out the visible text — body copy, headings, alt text and image captions.
Match
Every sentence is checked against 92 restricted terms drawn from Directive 2024/825 and the UCPD it amends. The national layer is translation, not law. Coverage is uneven and we print the real number in every report: English, French, Spanish and Italian carry all 92 terms, Estonian 91, Dutch 90, German 89, Finnish 75 and Swedish 74. The country guides tell you which authority enforces it and what the ceiling is.
Weigh
A match is not automatically a breach. We look at the same sentence for a certification, a standard or a measured figure, and adjust the severity accordingly.
Sift
A review model reads the first 90 findings in context and marks the ones it reads as commentary rather than marketing — a glossary entry, a policy page, a quotation. It is right 85% of the time on real shop pages we labelled ourselves (measured on unsloth/Qwen3.8-27B-NVFP4), which is not enough to let it delete anything: we measured it removing 4 more real claims than false ones. So it does not remove. Its verdict is printed next to each finding as a hint and you decide.
Rewrite
Findings come back with the legal basis and the reason they were flagged. The most serious ones also get a rewrite of your own sentence, with brackets around the facts you still need to supply; the rest carry the general pattern for that term.
Accuracy
What this will and will not find
Two measured numbers, both about our own limits. Neither is a step in the scan — they are what you should know before you trust one.
How much it misses
The other half of accuracy is recall: how many real claims the engine finds at all. On 32 claims we labelled by hand across 9 frozen shop pages it found 23 — 72%. That is 28% of them — roughly one restricted claim in 3 — missing from the report entirely. The pattern is not random: a claim that uses one of the 92 listed words is usually found; a claim that says the same thing in its own words usually is not. A clean report is a reason to look again, not a reason to stop.
How often the detector is right
We keep five shops out of the tuning entirely and label their findings before the engine sees them. On those, 20 findings were scored: 13 were real claims, 5 were not, and 2 the engine surfaced after we sealed the labels — we count those neither way. That is a small sample and we are not turning it into a headline percentage. One more thing you should know before you trust the number: the term list and the labels it is scored against were both written by the same person who wrote the rules. No independent person has checked either. That cross-check is temporarily unmeasured. It needs a second chat model to ask, and the router currently offers only one — the same model that runs our own triage. A model agreeing with itself is not a floor, so we publish no number here rather than a flattering one.
What gets checked
The parts of the Directive that bite in practice
Enforcement so far has turned on how a claim is worded, what evidence stands next to it, and what it is compared with. The 92-term lexicon covers all of that, invented labels and undisclosed comparisons included; the cards below are the parts that need more than a word list.
92 restricted terms
From "eco-friendly" to "climate neutral" to "2-year warranty" — the vocabulary that turns a marketing line into an unfair commercial practice.
Browse the list →Offsetting detection
Point 4c of Annex I to the UCPD — Directive 2005/29/EC as amended by Directive 2024/825 — bans neutrality claims built on purchased credits. When offsetting language sits next to a climate claim, we keep the finding critical.
Read the rule →Evidence awareness
A claim next to an FSC licence number, an ISO standard or a measured percentage is treated differently from the same claim standing alone.
See it in a report →Commentary marked, not removed
A glossary entry about "carbon neutral" is not a carbon-neutral claim, and a review model spots that better than a word list does. But we measured it on our own corpus and it removed more real claims than false ones — so it is not allowed to remove. Every finding stays; the model’s reading is shown beside it.
See how findings are marked →Country regimes
8 national enforcement pictures — Germany, France, Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Estonia, Finland, Sweden — with the authority, the statute and the penalty ceiling that actually applies.
Open the guides →Exposure illustration
A range built from your finding counts, the per-violation maximum in your market and the turnover ceiling that market actually applies. Presented as scale, not prophecy, and never above the statutory maximum.
How it is calculated →Claims inside images
Badges, labels and packshots carry claims too. Upload an image and we read the text printed on it before checking it the same way.
Try the image checker →What is at stake
Fines are set nationally, and the ceilings differ a lot
Directive 2024/825 leaves penalties to member states, and they differ more than the Directive does. Germany runs on private enforcement, and its 50,000 EUR administrative fine only bites in coordinated cross-border cases. Italy's authority can reach 10m EUR. Sweden and Finland set no fixed euro ceiling at all: 4% of turnover is the ordinary domestic maximum there, not a cross-border exception.
Maximum administrative fine per violation
Statutory maximum per infringement - not what an authority will impose, and not always an administrative fine. Germany's figure applies only to coordinated cross-border cases (UWG § 19(3)); domestically the real risk is an injunction. France's is a criminal fine. Each guide names the statute and the date it was checked.
- Germany €50,000
- France €300,000
- Netherlands €900,000
- Spain €1,000,000
- Italy €10,000,000
- Estonia €400,000
- Finland 4% of turnover
- Sweden 4% of turnover
Ceilings, not typical outcomes. Actual fines depend on duration, reach and cooperation - and in several markets the practical risk is an injunction long before a fine.
Check a page before someone else does
One URL, one paste or one image. No account.