On October 23, 2026, the Competition Bureau (the "Bureau") updated its guidance on environmental claims under the Competition Act (the "Act"), offering businesses some clarity on how they can promote their environmental initiatives while avoiding falling offside of the law.

The updated guidance follows amendments to the Act, which came into force on March 26, 2026. As discussed in our previous article, those amendments introduced two key changes:

  1. Removal of the internationally recognized methodology requirement: Businesses are no longer required to substantiate claims about the environmental benefits of their business or business activities using an "internationally recognized methodology." However, adequate and proper substantiation is still required.
  2. Restrictions on private challenges: Private parties can no longer bring proceedings before the Competition Tribunal specifically on the basis that environmental claims about a business or its activities lack adequate and proper substantiation.

So, what does the Bureau's updated guidance clarify, and what remains unchanged? Here's what you should know.

1. More ways to back up green claims, but how much proof is enough?

One of the most significant takeaways from the updated guidance is the Bureau's confirmation that businesses now have greater flexibility in choosing how to substantiate environmental claims about their business or business activities.

In particular, the Bureau now expressly recognizes that businesses can rely on a range of approaches, including:

  • Domestic or international standards and methodologies.
  • Regulatory frameworks and industry practices.
  • A business's own approach to measuring or demonstrating its environmental benefits.

The updated guidance also confirms that businesses may rely on data already collected through their operations, provided that it adequately and properly supports the claim being made.

While the previous guidance contemplated the use of existing operational data, it required that data to have been collected and evaluated using an internationally recognized methodology. That additional condition no longer applies.

The updated guidance also adjusts the Bureau’s approach to third-party verification. Previously, the Bureau stated that verification would be required where the internationally recognized methodology relied upon called for it. It now states that verification may be required where the means of substantiation chosen by the business calls for it.

What hasn't changed? The requirement for credible evidence remains firmly in place. As in its previous guidance, the Bureau continues to expect substantiation that is suitable, appropriate and relevant to the claim, and sufficiently rigorous to establish it. The Bureau also continues to expect substantiation to be adequate and proper in the circumstances, including with regard to the Canadian context as appropriate, such as geography and climate.

What remains uncertain? While businesses can now use their own approaches, the Bureau does not provide a definitive test for determining when an internal methodology will be considered sufficiently rigorous or precisely when independent verification will be necessary.

2. Private challenges: The door has narrowed, but hasn't closed

The updated guidance confirms that private parties can no longer seek permission to challenge environmental claims about a business or its activities solely on the basis that they lack adequate and proper substantiation under paragraph 74.01(1)(b.2) of the Act.

Importantly, however, this does not mean businesses are off the hook.

The Bureau can still investigate and take enforcement action against non-compliant environmental claims. Private parties may also continue to seek permission to challenge claims under other provisions of the Act, including those concerning:

  • False or misleading representations.
  • Product performance claims and claims about the environmental benefits of a product that are not supported by adequate and proper testing.

What hasn't changed? The broader prohibition on materially false or misleading advertising remains unchanged. As a result, even where a private party cannot challenge a business's environmental claim for inadequate substantiation under paragraph 74.01(1)(b.2), it may still be able to challenge the claim if it creates a materially false or misleading impression.

The bottom line: Keep it green, keep it grounded

The updated guidance confirms that there is more flexibility for businesses looking to communicate their environmental initiatives. However, many of the Bureau's core principles remain unchanged: environmental claims must be truthful, specific and supported by credible evidence.

To learn more about the evolving regulatory landscape for making environmental advertising claims, please visit our Environmental Claims and Greenwashing Hub