Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consumer Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Judiciary hears testimony on bill to ban deceptive ‘greenwashing’ claims; opponents say language is too broad
Summary
Senate Bill 680 would make materially false environmental marketing, net‑zero and reputational advertising an unlawful trade practice and allow damages up to $200. Supporters urged the committee to act against greenwashing; business groups and liability advocates said the bill’s definitions and enforcement are overly broad and unclear.
The Senate Committee on Judiciary on Feb. 26 held a public hearing on Senate Bill 680, legislation that would make materially false or misleading "environmental marketing claims," "net‑0 claims" and "reputational advertising" an unlawful trade practice and impose civil liability for damages of up to $200.
Senator Jeff Golden of District 3 urged support for the bill in a brief presentation, saying deceptive environmental marketing — commonly called greenwashing — undermines public understanding of climate risk and delays credible action. "Greenwashing promotes false solutions to the climate crisis that distract from and delay concrete and credible action," Golden said, quoting a United Nations statement he cited to frame the issue.
Supporters who testified included Corey Radey White of the Center for Climate Integrity, who argued the bill would help consumers make informed purchasing decisions and hold bad actors accountable. Radey White cited out‑of‑state enforcement examples, including consumer protection actions tied to recyclability claims.
Opponents said the bill’s definitions are vague and risk overreach. Fawn Berry of the Oregon Liability Reform Coalition said it was unclear who could enforce the law and whether the attorney general or private parties could bring suits; she noted the bill refers to remedies but omits the private‑rights provisions present in other statutes. Sharla Moffett of Oregon Business and Industry said the bill goes beyond existing prohibitions under Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act and would cover symbols, logos and brand names in ways that are difficult to adjudicate. Both said terms such as "publish" and "positive public perception" are undefined and could sweep in campaign speech, lobby communications or aspirational corporate statements.
Committee members asked clarifying questions. Senator McLean asked whether the bill would apply to candidates or lobbyists; Golden said the intent was to target commercial enterprises, not candidates, and advocates would be open to more precise language to address concerns. Golden told Vice Chair Thatcher that contested claims about accuracy would ultimately be decided in the judiciary.
The committee took testimony from in‑room and remote witnesses and did not take a vote on the measure during the hearing.
