Claims assessment · Supply-chain claim
Free from forced labour
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 | Restricted | View legal reasoningFLR (EU) 2024/3015 — forced-labour products banned from market (applies 14 Dec 2027); UCPD | Supply-chain mapping; remediation procedures; claim must reflect actual due diligence |
| United KingdomUK | Restricted | View legal reasoningMSA 2015 s.54 context; CMA Code | Statement + due diligence; claim-of-fact risk if incidents surface |
| United StatesUS | Restricted | View legal reasoningUFLPA (rebuttable presumption); Tariff Act s.307; FTC s.5 | Import traceability; CBP detention record affects credibility |
| CanadaCA | Restricted | Competition Act greenwashing provisions (Bill C-59)Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act View legal reasoningSupply Chains Act; Customs Tariff forced-labour import ban; s.74.01(1)(b.2) | Annual report consistency; methodology |
| AustraliaAU | Restricted | View legal reasoningMSA 2018 s.16 consistency; ACL s.18 | MS statement must not contradict marketing claim |