Litigating greenwashing: allegation-level dataset on environmental advertising disputes (2009–2025)

This is a single Excel workbook containing allegation-level records as rows with harmonised variable names and code lists as columns. A dedicated codebook sheet defines each variable, permissible values, and examples. Pivot sheets illustrate standard groupings by advertising format, message level, allegation framing, allegation subtype, and outcome; these are convenience views only. The dataset captures environmental advertising and labelling disputes involving firms, coded at the level of the allegation instance. Each record identifies the advertising format, whether the message is product- or firm-level, how the allegation is framed (misrepresentation, omission, or both), the allegation subtype (lack of substantiation, hidden trade-off, vagueness or ambiguity, implied or false label), procedure and outcome. Allegations are nested within cases, so a single dispute can contribute multiple allegation records. Records cover disputes filed or decided 1 January 2009 to 30 October 2025 across 13 countries. Earlier disputes present in the source repositories (back to 2009) are out of scope for this release. Coding reflects the most recent disposition available as of 30 October 2025. Primary inputs were official decisions and public case summaries collected from The Climate Litigation Database maintaned by the SABIN CENTER FOR CLIMATE CHANGE LAW (https://www.climatecasechart.com/). Where summaries lacked material detail, the referenced filing or judgment was consulted to resolve ambiguity; non-English materials were translated to ensure accurate coding. Data were coded to a consistent schema; all coding decisions follow the codebook embedded in the file. ncluded: court actions, advertising-standards rulings, and analogous complaint processes targeting environmental advertising or labelling by firms. Excluded: disputes solely about corporate reporting unconnected to advertising; academic or advocacy critiques without forum action; duplicate entries. Counts and shares should be computed at the allegation level. A single case may contain one to three allegation subtypes, so subtype counts can exceed the number of disputes.