Claims assessment · Product/packaging claim
Recyclable
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 reasoningUCPD; PPWR (EU) 2025/40 recyclability grades from 2030; national labelling (e.g., France Triman) | Collection/recycling infrastructure must exist for a significant share of consumers; PPWR design-for-recycling criteria |
| United KingdomUK | Restricted | View legal reasoningCMA Code; OPRL labelling norms | 'Widely recycled' qualification where local-authority coverage <75% |
| United StatesUS | Restricted | View legal reasoningFTC Green Guides 260.12 — unqualified 'recyclable' only where available to substantial majority (60%) of consumers | Qualify ('check locally') below 60% access |
| CanadaCA | Restricted | View legal reasonings.74.01(1)(b.1); Competition Bureau v Keurig precedent ($3m penalty, 2022) | Adequate and proper test of real-world recyclability, not just technical |
| AustraliaAU | Restricted | The cited source is recorded in the assessment. View legal reasoningACL; ARL (Australasian Recycling Label) norms | Evidence of real recycling pathway |