Claims assessment · Progress claim
98% of packaging designed for recycling
Typical treatment across five regimes. Every verdict below is tied to a stated legal hook.
Market comparison
How this claim is typically treated
Five major markets · one reviewed comparison
| Market | Typical treatment | Legal basis | What is required |
|---|---|---|---|
| European UnionEU | Conditional | View legal reasoningUCPD; PPWR design-for-recycling grades | 'Designed for' ≠ recycled in practice — the distinction must be prominent; PPWR 2030 grade alignment where relevant. |
| United KingdomUK | Conditional | View legal reasoningCMA Code; OPRL | Design-criteria basis; no implied actual recycling. |
| United StatesUS | Conditional | View legal reasoningFTC 260.8 logic | Cannot imply recyclability where infrastructure lacking. |
| CanadaCA | Conditional | View legal reasoningCompetition Act s.74.01(1)(b.1) | Design-assessment evidence. |
| AustraliaAU | Conditional | The cited source is recorded in the assessment. View legal reasoningACL s.18; ARL consistency | ARL-aligned assessment. |