Evisentra

Method

The rules we check against

Every rule Evisentra encodes is a public one. Not a proprietary framework, not a scoring model, not our opinion of what good looks like — a published guide, directive or standard you can open in another tab and read for yourself. That is the whole method: if you cannot check our reasoning against the source, the reasoning is worth nothing.

Last reviewed 2026-07-15 — the newest last-checked date in the encoded rule base, computed rather than typed.

Rule source directory

Generated from the encoded rule base itself — the same registry the free Claim Check reads when you pick a market. Every entry links to its primary source, because a rule you cannot open is a rule you are taking on trust. The full index →

What do the authority types mean?
Binding law or regulation
A statute, regulation, directive or decree with legal force in the market shown. Non-compliance is actionable on its own terms.
Enforcement guidance
A regulator's published interpretation of a law it enforces. Not binding in itself; it tells you how the regulator reads the statute behind it, and departing from it invites scrutiny under that statute.
Voluntary or industry standard
A published standard adopted by choice or by contract — ISO, EN, ASTM, GHG Protocol. It carries no legal force unless a law or an agreement incorporates it.
Certification-program requirement
The rules of a certification or labelling scheme. Binding on you only if you use the mark, and enforced by the scheme owner rather than a regulator.
Evisentra interpretation
Evisentra's own reading or a stricter evidence policy than the source requires. Ours, and arguable — it is labelled so you can disagree.
Proposed or pending requirement
Published but not yet in force, or still in draft. It cannot be breached today; it can make artwork obsolete tomorrow.

Authority classifications describe the nature of each source. Evisentra summaries are provided for readiness assessment and do not constitute legal advice or a determination of legal compliance.

US17 encoded rules · last checked 2026-07-14

The FTC Green Guides interpret Section 5 of the FTC Act for environmental marketing: unqualified claims must be substantiated, and a qualification has to be clear enough that an ordinary shopper reads it.

FTC Green Guides — 16 CFR §260.4 (general environmental benefit)

Enforcement guidance

Unqualified 'eco / green / sustainable' is deceptive; name a specific, proven attribute. Claims are made through words, symbols, logos, and depictions alike — imagery and colors count toward the overall impression.

Primary source · last checked 2026-06-25 · catches 5 claim families — Deforestation-free / zero-deforestation sourcing, Eco-friendly / green / environmentally friendly / sustainable, Lower-carbon / reduced footprint / X% less CO2

FTC Green Guides — 16 CFR §260.9 ('free-of' claims)

Enforcement guidance

'Free-of' must hold for the WHOLE product, incl. liners, labels, adhesives, coatings. §260.9's trace exception: the claim can still be permissible when the substance was never intentionally added and is present only at trivial background levels.

Primary source · last checked 2026-06-25 · catches 4 claim families — BPA-free / bisphenol claims, Microplastic-free / no microplastics, PFAS-free / restricted substances

AB 1305 (Voluntary Carbon Market Disclosures)

Binding law or regulation

Applies to entities operating in California that make carbon-neutral, net-zero, or significant-emission-reduction claims within California, and to marketers/sellers of voluntary carbon offsets: required public website disclosures (project, registry, verification detail), updated at least annually; enforceable with civil penalties.

Primary source · last checked 2026-06-25 · catches 3 claim families — Carbon neutral / net zero / climate neutral, Lower-carbon / reduced footprint / X% less CO2, Made with renewable / green / clean energy

FTC Green Guides — 16 CFR §260.13 (recycled content)

Enforcement guidance

State the % and don't overstate. Distinguishing pre- vs post-consumer is OPTIONAL under §260.13 unless the claim makes that distinction — then it must be substantiated. (Requiring the split plus chain of custody is Evisentra's stricter evidence policy, not an FTC mandate.)

Primary source · last checked 2026-06-25 · catches 2 claim families — Ocean-bound / ocean / recovered-ocean plastic, Recycled content (made from recycled material)

13 further encoded rules for this market — see the full index

EU7 encoded rules · last checked 2026-07-15

The Empowering Consumers Directive amends the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, and the PPWR governs packaging itself. Together they move generic environmental claims from risky to prohibited.

Empowering Consumers Directive (2024/825)

Binding law or regulation

Amends the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, transposed by member states, applying to consumer-facing commercial practices from 27 Sep 2026: generic environmental claims ('eco', 'green', 'climate friendly') are banned unless recognised excellent environmental performance can be demonstrated, and offset-based climate-neutrality product claims are blacklisted outright.

Primary source · last checked 2026-06-25 · catches 17 claim families — Bio-based / plant-based material, Biodegradable / degradable, Carbon neutral / net zero / climate neutral

Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 (EU Deforestation Regulation, EUDR)

Binding law or regulation

Operators and traders placing cattle, wood, cocoa, soy, palm oil, coffee, rubber (and derived products such as leather, chocolate, furniture) on the EU market must prove the goods are deforestation-free with geolocation and due diligence; obligations apply from 30 Dec 2026 (large/medium) and 30 Jun 2027 (micro/small) — a 'deforestation-free' claim should rest on that traceability and cut-off date, not a slogan.

Primary source · last checked 2026-07-09 · catches 1 claim family — Deforestation-free / zero-deforestation sourcing

Regulation (EU) 2023/2055 (REACH restriction — intentionally added microplastics)

Binding law or regulation

The EU restricts synthetic polymer microparticles intentionally added to products (REACH restriction adopted 2023), phased in by use with information duties where microplastics remain — so a 'microplastic-free' claim must match the regulatory definition and cover intentionally added microplastics.

Primary source · last checked 2026-07-09 · catches 1 claim family — Microplastic-free / no microplastics

Regulation (EU) 2024/3190 (BPA in food-contact materials)

Binding law or regulation

BPA is banned in the manufacture of food-contact materials (limited derogations; transitional periods to 20 Jul 2026 and 20 Jan 2028) — so an EU 'BPA-free' claim may state the legal floor rather than a distinctive benefit.

Primary source · last checked 2026-07-03 · catches 1 claim family — BPA-free / bisphenol claims

3 further encoded rules for this market — see the full index

UK1 encoded rule · last checked 2026-06-25

The CMA Green Claims Code interprets consumer protection law, and the DMCC Act 2024 gave the CMA direct enforcement powers — fines without going to court first.

DMCC Act 2024 + CMA Green Claims Code

Binding law or regulation

The CMA can take enforcement action on misleading green claims, and significant penalties may apply.

Primary source · last checked 2026-06-25 · catches 18 claim families — BPA-free / bisphenol claims, Bio-based / plant-based material, Biodegradable / degradable

Canada1 encoded rule · last checked 2026-07-03

The Competition Act amendments under Bill C-59 put the burden of substantiation on the advertiser, and opened private enforcement.

Competition Act s.74.01(1)(b.1)/(b.2) (Bill C-59) + Competition Bureau environmental-claims guidelines

Binding law or regulation

Product environmental-benefit claims must be based on adequate and proper testing, and business/activity claims on adequate and proper substantiation, BEFORE the claim is made; the onus is on the advertiser. The earlier 'internationally recognized methodology' requirement was REMOVED by the Budget 2025 Implementation Act (Royal Assent March 26, 2026); the testing and substantiation duties remain. Significant penalties apply (statutory maximums up to $10M or 3% of worldwide revenue; e.g., Keurig Canada paid $3M over recycling claims).

Primary source · last checked 2026-07-03 · catches 18 claim families — BPA-free / bisphenol claims, Bio-based / plant-based material, Biodegradable / degradable

France1 encoded rule · last checked 2026-07-09

Loi AGEC and its décrets regulate consumer environmental information directly, including specific bans on wording.

Loi AGEC — Décret 2022-748 (consumer environmental info)

Binding law or regulation

France prohibits vague environmental wording such as 'biodégradable' and 'respectueux de l'environnement' (environmentally friendly), and equivalents, on consumer products and packaging (Art. R.541-223), and mandates standardized environmental information (recyclability, recycled content, Triman sorting) — so a French claim must use specific, regulated wording, not a slogan.

Primary source · last checked 2026-07-09 · catches 18 claim families — BPA-free / bisphenol claims, Bio-based / plant-based material, Biodegradable / degradable

Australia1 encoded rule · last checked 2026-07-09

The Australian Consumer Law prohibits misleading conduct, and the ACCC's environmental-claims guidance sets out how it reads green marketing in particular.

Australian Consumer Law + ACCC environmental-claims guidance

Binding law or regulation

Under the Australian Consumer Law, environmental and sustainability claims must be truthful, substantiated with evidence, and not misleading or deceptive; the ACCC's 'Making environmental claims: a guide for business' sets good-practice principles and greenwashing is an active ACCC enforcement priority.

Primary source · last checked 2026-07-09 · catches 18 claim families — BPA-free / bisphenol claims, Bio-based / plant-based material, Biodegradable / degradable

What changes on 27 September 2026

Directive (EU) 2024/825 — the Empowering Consumers Directive — was adopted in 2024 and member states apply it from 27 September 2026. It does not create a new green-claims regulator. It adds specific practices to the blacklist in the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, which means they become prohibited outright rather than assessed case by case.

What tightens. A generic environmental claim — “eco-friendly”, “green”, “climate friendly”, “environmentally responsible” — becomes prohibited unless the excellence being claimed is demonstrated under a recognized scheme. A carbon-neutrality claim based wholly or mainly on offsetting is blacklisted outright: no amount of disclosure rescues it. A sustainability label without a certification scheme behind it is prohibited. And a claim about the whole product when only one component qualifies is caught.

Who it affects. Anyone placing consumer-facing claims on the EU market, regardless of where the company is. It reaches packaging artwork, product listings, and advertising alike. The practical consequence is a timing one: artwork being locked now is the artwork on shelf then, and a claim that is defensible in the US today can be prohibited in the EU on that date.

What it does not do. It does not ban environmental claims, and it does not ban offsetting. A specific, substantiated, qualified claim is as lawful on 28 September as it was on 26 September. What ends is the unqualified one.

How Evisentra judges a claim

Five steps. Which of them is a machine and which is a person is stated at each one, because that is the question a sceptical buyer is actually asking.

  1. 01Wording screenAutomatedYour claim is matched against the encoded claim families and the rules for your markets. Deterministic pattern matching against a public rule base — no model, no inference, and the same input always gives the same output.
  2. 02Evidence intakeHumanA person reads what you send: certificates, test reports, footprints, supplier declarations. Optional AI assistance is limited to organizing and classifying documents, runs inside Evisentra infrastructure, is never sent to a third-party provider, and never decides an outcome.
  3. 03Criterion assessmentHuman, against a public rubricEach criterion is judged against the published rubric and given an evidence state with the limitation on it written out. The rubric is public precisely so a finding can be argued with.
  4. 04ScoringAutomatedReadiness and the publish decision are computed from the criterion states by rules, not written by hand and not produced by a model. Fix the inputs and the method version and the verdict is reproducible.
  5. 05AssessmentHuman, and namedThe final assessment is written by a named human reviewer who is identified in your report and who will defend the finding to your retailer. That name is not “the Evisentra team”.

Common claims and how they fail

Ten claim families, the rule that bites each one, and wording that survives review. Built from the same tables the free check and the paid report use — not written for this page.

“100% recyclable.”Recyclable / 100% recyclable
US FTC Green Guides'Recyclable' is only defensible if recycling facilities are available to a substantial majority (~60%) of consumers where sold. 'Recyclable' is NOT 'recycled'.
EU Empowering Consumers Directive (2024/825) + PPWR (2025/40) Art. 6Misleading presentation of recyclability is an unfair practice; the PPWR grades recyclability on real collection and recycling at scale — so claims should reflect real-world collection, not just material type.
A version that survives reviewNo on-pack recyclability wording until facility-access evidence for each selling market is on file and the whole package qualifies; then: 'Recyclable — check your local program', backed by that access data.
“Carbon neutral.”Carbon neutral / net zero / climate neutral
EU Empowering Consumers Directive (2024/825, in force)Climate-neutrality claims based wholly or mainly on carbon OFFSETTING are being banned; the claim must reflect the product's own lifecycle, not purchased credits.
US FTC Green GuidesMust disclose reliance on offsets and substantiate them; an unqualified 'carbon neutral' claim is deceptive without a clear, disclosed basis.
A version that survives reviewCradle-to-gate footprint cut 28% since 2020 (ISO 14067); residual addressed with certified removals.
“Biodegradable.”Biodegradable / degradable
US FTC Green Guides'Biodegradable' is deceptive unless the item breaks down within ~1 year in customary disposal (landfill rarely qualifies).
EN 13432 / ASTM D6400If the real claim is compostability, certify it to a standard instead — see the compostable claim family.
A version that survives reviewIndustrially compostable, certified EN 13432 (where facilities exist).
“Compostable.”Compostable (home / industrial)
US FTC Green Guides §260.7'Compostable' needs competent and reliable evidence the item breaks down in a safe and timely manner, and qualification when most consumers lack access to industrial composting facilities.
EN 13432 / ASTM D6400 / AS 5810Compostability must be certified to a recognised standard by a recognised certifier (BPI, TUV OK compost, Seedling), with home vs industrial conditions stated.
A version that survives reviewCertified industrially compostable (EN 13432 / BPI) — facilities may not exist in your area.
“Made from recycled materials.”Recycled content (made from recycled material)
US FTC Green GuidesState the percentage recycled and don't overstate; distinguishing pre- vs post-consumer is optional under §260.13 unless the claim makes that distinction — then it must be substantiated.
ISO 14021Recycled-content claims need a defined percentage and chain of custody.
A version that survives reviewMade with 30% post-consumer recycled content (third-party verified).
“PFAS-free.”PFAS-free / restricted substances
US FTC Green Guides §260.9 ('free-of')A 'free-of' claim must hold for the WHOLE product (coatings, inks, adhesives, barriers) and not mislead about trace levels — though §260.9's trace exception can cover never-intentionally-added trivial background amounts.
US state PFAS laws (ME / MN / CA)State laws restrict INTENTIONALLY ADDED PFAS by product category on differing timelines with differing definitions — the claim must state which definition it meets.
A version that survives reviewNo intentionally added PFAS; total organic fluorine below the applicable threshold by [named method], all components tested.
“Plant-based.”Bio-based / plant-based material
US FTC Green Guides §260.16 (renewable materials)Renewable-material claims need qualification: what material, how much of the item, and why it's renewable — and must not imply other benefits (like biodegradability).
ASTM D6866 / USDA BioPreferredBio-based content is a measurable percentage (biobased carbon, ASTM D6866); USDA Certified Biobased labels state the certified %.
A version that survives reviewBottle made with 30% certified biobased content (ASTM D6866).
“Less packaging.”Less packaging / material reduction
US FTC Green Guides §260.17 (source reduction)Source-reduction claims must be qualified with the basis of comparison — less than WHAT, measured HOW.
A version that survives review25% less plastic by weight than our 2023 bottle, same volume.
“Reusable.”Reusable / refillable
US FTC Green Guides §260.14 (refillable)A refillable claim is deceptive unless a means to refill is actually provided (collection/return system or a refill product sold).
A version that survives reviewRefillable in-store and with our refill packs; tested to 50 use cycles.
“Low carbon.”Lower-carbon / reduced footprint / X% less CO2
US FTC Green Guides / EU Empowering Consumers DirectiveComparative claims must state the baseline and be a like-for-like comparison.
ISO 14026 / 14067Footprint comparisons require the same functional unit and boundary.
A version that survives review20% lower cradle-to-gate carbon than our 2022 product, same functional unit (ISO 14026).

The evidence map

A paid engagement doesn't hand you a PDF opinion — it builds an evidence map: your company, products, suppliers, materials, and documents, connected to the claims they support and the rules those claims must meet. Direct link →

Connect
Company → product → supplier → material → document → claim.
Reuse evidence across reviews
A recognized global standard (a GRS certificate, an ISO footprint) can answer the same question for many buyers — with market-specific checks on wording, thresholds, and local infrastructure.
See the gaps
Exactly which requirement has no supporting document yet — before a buyer's auditor finds it.

The evidence map is built during a paid engagement from your own documents; it is private to you. The rubric, rule index, and standards behind it are public.

What else is public

The rubric

The ten dimensions a claim and its evidence are scored against — public, traceable, and challengeable. See the rubric →

The rule index

Every encoded claim-family rule by market (US, California, EU, UK, Canada), each with its primary source and last-checked date. Browse the rule index →

Standards & methods

The recognized global evidence language (ISO, EN, ASTM, GHG Protocol, GRS, ISCC) — what each proves and which claims it supports. See standards →

The evidence map

The paid deliverable's engine: each claim connected to the exact documents that support it, the gaps, and the rules it must meet. How it works →

What we take on, by claim type

One consistent policy for every claim family. Every paid assessment is founder-led: Abhishek Singh, PhD — a materials and packaging scientist — applies Evisentra's published rubric to your evidence and is named in your report as the reviewer. On request, Evisentra arranges a named, conflict-checked independent specialist opinion — identity, scope, fee, and delivery date confirmed in writing before any payment. You may also bring your own expert; Evisentra coordinates.

Evisentra service scope by claim family
Claim familyHow we handle itSpecialist opinion
Recyclable / 100% recyclableFounder-led assessmentFounder-led review named in your report; independent packaging / recycling-systems specialist opinion available on request.
Recycled contentFounder-led assessmentFounder-led review named in your report; independent materials / chain-of-custody specialist opinion available on request.
Less packaging / material reductionFounder-led assessmentFounder-led review named in your report; independent packaging engineering specialist opinion available on request.
Plastic-freeFounder-led assessmentFounder-led review named in your report; independent materials / packaging specialist opinion available on request.
Reusable / refillableFounder-led assessmentFounder-led review named in your report; independent packaging durability / reuse systems specialist opinion available on request.
Ocean-bound / recovered-ocean plasticFounder-led assessmentFounder-led review named in your report; independent materials / chain-of-custody specialist opinion available on request.
Deforestation-free / zero-deforestationFounder-led assessmentFounder-led review named in your report; independent forestry / supply-chain traceability specialist opinion available on request.
Bio-based / plant-based materialFounder-led assessmentFounder-led review named in your report; independent bio-content analysis (e.g. ASTM D6866) specialist opinion available on request.
Natural / non-toxic / chemical-freeFounder-led assessmentFounder-led review named in your report; independent toxicology / product safety specialist opinion available on request.
Microplastic-free / no microplasticsFounder-led assessmentFounder-led review named in your report; independent analytical chemistry / microplastics specialist opinion available on request.
Carbon neutral / net zero / offsetsFounder-led — specialist opinion required before relianceThe report states plainly that an independent LCA / carbon accounting specialist opinion is required before final reliance — arranged on request, confirmed in writing before any payment for it.
Lower-carbon / reduced footprintFounder-led — specialist opinion required before relianceThe report states plainly that an independent LCA / carbon accounting specialist opinion is required before final reliance — arranged on request, confirmed in writing before any payment for it.
Made with renewable / clean energyFounder-led — specialist opinion required before relianceThe report states plainly that an independent energy attributes / renewable procurement specialist opinion is required before final reliance — arranged on request, confirmed in writing before any payment for it.
PFAS-free / restricted substancesFounder-led — specialist opinion required before relianceThe report states plainly that an independent analytical chemistry / restricted substances specialist opinion is required before final reliance — arranged on request, confirmed in writing before any payment for it.
BPA-free / bisphenol claimsFounder-led — specialist opinion required before relianceThe report states plainly that an independent analytical chemistry / food contact specialist opinion is required before final reliance — arranged on request, confirmed in writing before any payment for it.
Compostable (home / industrial)Founder-led — specialist opinion required before relianceThe report states plainly that an independent compostability / biodegradation testing specialist opinion is required before final reliance — arranged on request, confirmed in writing before any payment for it.
Biodegradable / degradableFounder-led — specialist opinion required before relianceThe report states plainly that an independent biodegradation science specialist opinion is required before final reliance — arranged on request, confirmed in writing before any payment for it.
Eco-friendly / green / sustainable (umbrella)Free screening onlyFree screening only. 'Eco/green/sustainable' is not a single substantiable claim; name the specific attribute for a paid assessment.

Scope policy scope-v3, effective 2026-07-23. For claims that need judgment outside the founder's documented competence — carbon accounting and offsets, PFAS and restricted-substance chemistry, laboratory compostability interpretation — the report states plainly that an independent specialist opinion is required before final reliance. If you want that opinion arranged and no suitable specialist can be confirmed, Evisentra says so and will waitlist, decline, or refer — payment is never taken on a staffing promise it can't keep. The exact calendar delivery date is confirmed in your written scope; when an independent specialist opinion is included, it is confirmed after the specialist's acceptance. Screening, assessment, an independent specialist opinion, legal advice, and certification are distinct services; Evisentra provides claim-readiness assessment and coordinates specialists, and is not a certifier or law firm.

Check one claim. Decide about us after.

Run the free 60-second check Get a fixed-scope quote

No account. No payment until you approve a written scope.