EOFY Sale · Save up to $750 off your legals · Ends 30 June

Claim offer
Selected cases

Federal Court of Australia · [2026] FCA 96

ACCR v Santos

A Federal Court greenwashing case about Santos' clean energy, net zero, hydrogen and emissions-roadmap statements.

Federal Court of Australia17 Feb 2026

Plain-English explainers, not legal advice. Check the linked official source before you rely on a specific section, and get advice for your situation.

Get legal help

Start here

Quick read

  • Environmental and climate claims need evidence behind them, but the law also reads them in context.
  • A Federal Court greenwashing case about Santos' clean energy, net zero, hydrogen and emissions-roadmap statements.

Use this to check

  • Greenwashing risk turns on the overall impression, audience and evidence behind the claim.
  • Forward-looking environmental targets need reasonable grounds at the time they are made.
  • Offset use should be disclosed clearly where it is part of the pathway to a target.

Decision snapshot

  1. 1

    What happened

    • The Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility, a shareholder advocacy and research organisation and shareholder in Santos, alleged that Santos made misleading or deceptive greenwashing representations in its 2020 Investor Day presentation, 2020 Annual Report and 2021 Climate Change Report.
    • The claims concerned Santos' statements about clean energy, zero emissions hydrogen, its 2030 emissions target, its 2040 net zero target and a Net Zero Roadmap involving carbon capture and storage, hydrogen with CCS, electrification or hydrogen fuel and carbon credits.
    • Santos denied the alleged misleading conduct and relied on detailed evidence from employees, board materials and experts about how the targets and roadmap were developed.
  2. 2

    What the court had to decide

    • The Federal Court had to decide whether Santos' public statements about clean energy, zero emissions hydrogen, emissions-reduction targets and its Net Zero Roadmap were misleading or deceptive under the Corporations Act and Australian Consumer Law.
    • The Court considered future matters, the target audience, reasonable grounds for assumptions, carbon capture and storage, hydrogen with CCS, offsets and alleged omissions about emissions growth.
  3. 3

    What the court decided

    • The Court dismissed ACCR's further amended originating process and concise statement and ordered ACCR to pay Santos' costs, subject to any later application to vary the costs order.
    • The Court was not satisfied that the alleged representations were misleading or deceptive in the way pleaded, including in relation to the 2030 target, 2040 target and Net Zero Roadmap.

Practical impact

Practical read

  • Environmental and climate claims need evidence behind them, but the law also reads them in context.
  • A long-term target is not automatically misleading because it includes uncertainty, offsets or future technology, but the business still needs a reasonable basis for the roadmap it publishes.

Useful next steps

  • Greenwashing risk turns on the overall impression, audience and evidence behind the claim.
  • Forward-looking environmental targets need reasonable grounds at the time they are made.
  • Offset use should be disclosed clearly where it is part of the pathway to a target.
  • Internal technical, board and strategy documents can become decisive evidence if claims are challenged.
  • Label sustainability statements as current facts, targets, aspirations or assumptions.

Practical read

This is a major greenwashing case, but it has a useful lesson for businesses of any size making sustainability claims. The Court did not treat words like clean energy, zero emissions hydrogen or net zero as magic phrases that automatically win or lose. It looked at audience, context, the surrounding documents, the timeframe of the targets and the evidence Santos had at the time.

The judgment is not a free pass for environmental marketing. It shows the amount of evidence a business may need if a public sustainability claim is challenged: board papers, technical studies, expert analysis, project work, emissions assumptions, offset assumptions and the way people inside the company developed the roadmap. Santos won because the particular pleaded allegations were not made out, not because climate claims are low risk.

For smaller businesses, the practical point is to keep sustainability copy precise. Say what is already happening, what is a target, what depends on technology or third parties, and what role offsets play. If the claim is forward-looking, keep the documents that show the reasonable basis for making it.

Checks to run

Key points

  • Label sustainability statements as current facts, targets, aspirations or assumptions.
  • Keep the modelling, board papers, expert material and project notes supporting environmental claims.
  • Explain the role of offsets, carbon credits or third-party emissions reductions where they matter.
  • Review words such as clean, net zero, carbon neutral and zero emissions against the full customer or investor impression.
  • Update public claims when the underlying technical plan or market assumptions materially change.

Key takeaways

  • Greenwashing risk turns on the overall impression, audience and evidence behind the claim.
  • Forward-looking environmental targets need reasonable grounds at the time they are made.
  • Offset use should be disclosed clearly where it is part of the pathway to a target.
  • Internal technical, board and strategy documents can become decisive evidence if claims are challenged.

Related topics

Consumer Law & TradingEnvironment, Waste & PollutionCompanies & Startups

How Sprintlaw can help

Regulatory ComplianceContract ReviewWebsite Terms and Conditions