Case Name: Instituto Brasileiro de Defesa do Consumidor (IDEC) vs. Gol Linhas Aéreas S/A (Greenwashing in aviation)

Summary

This is a Public Civil Action (ACP) filed by the Brazilian Institute for Consumer Protection (IDEC) against GOL Linhas Aéreas SA, due to the alleged practice of greenwashing in the dissemination and implementation of environmental programs linked to the sale of airline tickets, notably the "My Flight Pays Off" initiative, developed in partnership with the company MOSS, aimed at acquiring carbon credits. It is argued that, at the time of ticket purchase, consumers were encouraged to pay an additional amount for environmental compensation without clear, accessible, and scientific proof of the real effectiveness of the announced measures. It is alleged that the defendant also promoted campaigns such as "100% Carbon Neutral Routes" and the so-called "GOL Green Plane," associating visual elements and advertising narratives with a supposed environmental and climate commitment, without presenting sufficient technical data demonstrating a concrete impact on the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It is stated that, previously, IDEC (Brazilian Institute for Consumer Protection) initiated legal proceedings (Case No. 1007633-65.2025.8.26.0100 - Brazilian Institute for Consumer Protection (IDEC) vs. Gol Linhas Aéreas S/A (Information provision and greenwashing)) seeking detailed clarifications from the defendant company, and GOL's responses demonstrated a lack of technical proof of the GHG Protocol methodology applied to individual passengers, lack of transparency in pricing, contractual contradiction, absence of public certification linked to the purchase of credits by passengers, confirmation of the link with Moss - a company linked to projects under investigation in the Federal Police's Operation Greenwashing, use of carbon tokens without effective environmental benefit, and lack of minimal proof of the environmental claims linked to Gol's "green plane". IDEC cites, as its legal and institutional basis, Advisory Opinion 32/2025 (PC-32/2025) of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) and the 2025 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on climate, which recognizes the climate emergency as a human rights issue and affirms the duty of States (and, by extension, of economic agents) to ensure access to clear environmental information, based on scientific evidence, with active and passive transparency. On the merits, it requests the suspension of campaigns and communications considered misleading, the adaptation of the defendant's environmental advertising to the parameters of truthfulness and verifiability, the condemnation of GOL to reparation for collective moral damages, the imposition of obligations to act consisting of the disclosure of clear technical information about its environmental programs, and the adoption of structural measures to prevent new greenwashing practices in the consumer market.

In its defense, GOL denied engaging in greenwashing and misleading advertising, stating that its environmental programs were developed within the framework of the voluntary carbon credit market, which at the time had a predominantly self-regulated regime, using credits certified by Verra, through its partner Moss, selected based on technical, reputational, and compliance criteria. It argued that the "Meu Voo Compensa" (My Flight Pays Off) program was optional, with clear information provided to consumers, while the "Rotas 100% Carbon Neutro" (100% Carbon Neutral Routes) initiative was funded by the company itself, and the "Avião Verde da GOL" (GOL's Green Plane) was merely an institutional communication action linked to its ESG strategy. It further alleged that it had always disclosed technical information through its sustainability reports, having provided extensive clarifications and presented comprehensive documentation in the context of the legal action brought by IDEC. Finally, the defendant requested that the plaintiff's claims be dismissed.

The judgment was delivered and the Court dismissed the preliminary objections raised by GOL and recognized the practice of misleading environmental advertising (greenwashing), understanding that the company did not provide clear, sufficient, and verifiable information about the programs in question, especially regarding the carbon offsetting methodology, traceability of the credits used, and the effectiveness of the advertised environmental benefits. It understood that the use of claims of "carbon offsetting" and "neutralization" without due transparency violated the duty to inform stipulated in the Consumer Protection Code and misled the consumer. Thus, it ruled entirely in favor of the requests made by IDEC, ordering GOL to cease new environmental communications without auditable technical proof, to conduct counter-advertising, to remove elements related to the "GOL Green Plane," and to pay R$ 5 million in collective moral damages.

See more See less

Main norms mobilized

• Article 170 of the Federal Constitution (CRFB/88)
• Article 225 of the Federal Constitution (CRFB/88)
• Consumer Protection Code - CDC (Federal Law 8.078/1990)
• Environmental Crimes Law (Federal Law 9.605/1998)

Case timeline

Case documents