On this page
Dual-market artwork conflicts: when the same pack cannot tell one truth
How to use this page
A map of collisions, not a SKU-level determination. Each row is a pair of instruments that can both apply to one physical pack and that do not mean the same thing by the same word or mark. The usual practical answer — print every required mark, and only the claims permitted in both markets — is recorded as an observation, not as advice.
recyclableBanned, restricted or litigated wording — not production artwork
klimaneutral · climate-neutral · neutre en carboneBanned, restricted or litigated wording — not production artwork
Wording lock-ups record banned, restricted or litigated phrases for identification and commentary. They are not production artwork.
One surface, two propositions
A dual-market SKU is not a translation problem. It is a collision of legal objects that happen to share a noun. “Recyclable” in 16 CFR § 260.12 is an access claim. “Recyclable” under California SB 343 is a list claim. OPRL’s Recycle is a licensed consumer action. French Info-tri names a bin and, on Citeo’s own account, does not use the word “Recycle” because some sorted packaging is not recycled. Printing one lock-up for all four markets asserts four different propositions. At most some of them are true.
Required marks collide with banned words on the same panel. A French household EPR pack must carry Triman/Info-tri and must not carry “biodégradable”. A Seedling earned for EN 13432 does not authorise the French word; it also does not replace Triman. The pack can be required to show a sorting mark and forbidden to show a compostability boast at once. That is the architecture the France AGEC article and the France country report already separate; this page is the dual-market consequence.
The collisions
| Collision | Instrument A | Instrument B | What cannot be true of both | Artwork consequence observed in this library |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| “Recyclable” US federal vs California | 16 CFR § 260.12: unqualified claim if ≥ 60% access where sold (guidance) | SB 343: chasing arrows and related representations tied to a CalRecycle list; AG enforcement preliminarily enjoined 14 July 2026, statute not repealed | A pack can meet the Guides’ access test and still be a prohibited California representation on a manufacture-after-4-October-2026 SKU | Do not treat Green Guides compliance as California compliance. Recyclable-claim article. |
| “Recyclable” US vs UK vs France | How2Recycle Widely Recyclable / Check Locally (scheme) | OPRL licensed actions; Citeo Info-tri (bin, not “Recycle”) | The scheme classification is not a translation of the others | Market-specific sorting panels. A US “Widely Recyclable” lock-up is not French Info-tri and is not OPRL Recycle. |
| Climate-neutral verdict | FTC § 260.5: condition and disclose offsets | EmpCo Annex I point 4c from 27 September 2026: offset-based product climate-neutral / reduced / positive GHG claims blacklisted. France Decree 2022-539 still conditions advertising; BGH requires an on-the-spot explanation of “klimaneutral” | A pack lawful under § 260.5 can be an EmpCo point 4c practice in the Union. An explained German offset claim satisfies Katjes and still fails point 4c | Drop the verdict claim on EU-facing packs from the EmpCo application date. A footprint score is a different family. Climate-neutral article. |
| “Biodegradable” / “compostable” | US § 260.8 / § 260.7: evidence and qualification, not a ban. State compostable statutes on top | France L.541-9-1: word-ban on “biodégradable” and on industrial-only “compostable” for plastic. EmpCo: bare “biodegradable” is a generic-claim example from 27 September 2026 | A certified EN 13432 item can carry a Seedling in Germany and must not carry the French word on a French SKU. Specification under EmpCo does not punch a hole in L.541-9-1 | Strip the French banned words on any pack that will be placed in France, including dual-language EU packs. Keep the mark only where the scheme licence and the national word-rule both allow it. Biodegradable article. |
| Ocean content claims | OBP scheme: “ocean-bound” = land-based leakage within 50 km of shores with inefficient waste management | ACL as applied in ACCC v Clorox: front-of-pack “ocean plastic” plus wave imagery connoted ocean-collected plastic; the 50 km asterisk did not save it | A technically accurate OBP definition on the reverse is not the ordinary-consumer meaning of a marine front | Do not print a marine story over a land-based leakage certificate. OBP article; GLAD article. |
| Triman vs rest of the Union | France L.541-9-3: Triman + Info-tri on household EPR products, still in force | Case C-249/26 Commission v France, pending; PPWR Article 12 harmonised composition label on a later-of formula (12 August 2028 or 24 months after the implementing act, whichever is later) | An infringement action does not suspend French law. The future Union label is not yet a licence to drop Triman | Keep Triman on French-placed household packs. Do not treat C-249/26 or an unimplemented Article 12 act as current artwork permission. France report. |
| Italy vs Spain material identification | Italy: alphanumeric material coding (Decision 97/129/EC style) still required on the pack | Spain: container pictograms / a different on-pack convention, treated in Theme 2 as requiring the opposite of Italy on the same European surface | A single EU “material code” lock-up does not satisfy both | Market-specific panels, not a merged pictogram. Italy; Spain. |
| Green Dot vs sorting marks | Green Dot: financing / system-participation mark in the markets where it still appears | Triman, OPRL, How2Recycle, Nordic pictograms: sorting or action marks. France in particular: do not use Green Dot as a sorting instruction | A financing mark is not a recyclability or sorting proposition | If a Green Dot remains on a dual-market pack, it cannot do the work of Info-tri or OPRL. Green Dot article. |
| SUPD marking vs recycling symbols | IR 2020/2151: harmonised SUP pictogram and prescribed wording on four Part D families, from 3 July 2021 | Mobius loop, resin codes, How2Recycle, Tidyman | The SUP mark is a harm-and-disposal notice, not a recycling, compostability or anti-litter-as-virtue claim | Do not redraw it, do not put it on bottles or plates, do not pair it as if it were a chasing-arrows variant. SUPD marking. |
| Same-medium qualification vs QR | EmpCo, CAP 11.1/11.4, BGH Katjes, ACCC principle 3: the qualification that makes the claim true belongs on the same medium | French 10/20 cm² digital substitute is a Triman delivery rule, not a claims-qualification rule. GS1 Digital Link is a carrier, not a legal permission | A store-locator QR is not the on-pack qualification the claim-law family requires | If the claim needs a condition, print the condition. Digital layers do not rescue a generic or unexplained verdict. QR codes and the law. |
| French Triman on Maghreb / Moroccan files | France L.541-9-3: Triman + Info-tri on household EPR products placed on the French market | Morocco: no located general sorting label; Law 77-15 is a bag ban, not a destination pictogram | Printing Triman in Casablanca does not make the pack labelled for Morocco, and omitting Triman on a SKU that will also be placed in France does not become lawful because the file is Maghreb-facing | Treat Triman as a French duty that travels with the physical pack. A shared French-language file is a dual-market fact. Morocco report; France report. |
A working rule of composition
Read across the table, the collisions add rather than cancel. Required marks are unioned: every market that demands a physical mark on the pack that will actually be placed there still demands it. Permitted claims are intersected: a word that is banned or blacklisted in any market the SKU will enter cannot be the shared lock-up. Qualifications belong on the same medium: a reverse-panel asterisk, a QR code and a compensator’s website have now failed that test in Australia, Germany and the EmpCo text respectively.
That is an observation about how the instruments interact, not a determination that any particular SKU is lawful. Sell-through rules, manufacture-date triggers, language versions and “placed on the market” versus “made available” still have to be read in the country report. The on-pack spec sheets remain the millimetre layer for the marks. This page is the claim-word layer those sheets do not carry.
Traps
The first trap is a bilingual pack that keeps English “compostable” for the German reader and French “compostable” for the French reader. L.541-9-1 bans the mention on the product or packaging, not merely the French-language mention. The second is treating the SB 343 injunction as a US-wide permission to keep chasing arrows. The order restrains identified enforcement; it does not rewrite § 260.12 and it does not repeal the statute. The third is a “climate-neutral (see website)” line intended to satisfy Katjes and EmpCo at once. It may satisfy neither. The fourth is waiting for PPWR Article 12 to retire Triman. Until an implementing act exists and the later-of formula has run, and until C-249/26 is decided, French law is the current artwork constraint. The fifth is a Maghreb SKU that carries Triman as if the mark were a Moroccan recycling label. It is a French duty on a file that happens to travel.
References
Each collision is sourced in the linked Atlas articles. This page does not re-quote the instruments except to name them. SB 343’s injunction posture is as of 14 July 2026, recorded in the litigation tracker and the injunction article. EmpCo’s 27 September 2026 application date is from Directive (EU) 2024/825. Citeo’s refusal of the word “Recycle” is from the France country report.
Directive (EU) 2024/825 OJ L, 2024/825, 6.3.2024.. Available at: Open source (Accessed: 23 August 2026).
16 CFR § 260.12 Recyclable claims.. Available at: Open source (Accessed: 23 August 2026).
Bundesgerichtshof (2024) Pressemitteilung Nr. 138/2024, 27 June (I ZR 98/23).. Available at: Open source (Accessed: 23 August 2026).
Note on sources and verification
The “union of marks, intersection of claims, same-medium qualification” formula is this library’s synthesis of the collisions tabulated above. It is not a legal advice product and not a substitute for the country reports. Italy/Spain is characterised from the Theme 2 articles those markets own, not re-derived. PPWR Article 12(1)’s later-of formula is as stated in the France report and the PPWR on-pack article. No millimetre specification is invented for any claim-word.
Last verified: 23 August 2026.