2024-11-21 18:16:00
Iberdrola he accused Repsol to “cheat” through some of their campaigns advertisingusing unreliable information regarding the reality of its business and omitting essential data on its sustainability, while the oil company defended its commitment to the energy transition and its being a multi-energy company.
This Thursday was celebrated in Commercial Court number 2 of Santander the hearing of the trial relating to the lawsuit brought by Iberdrola against Repsol for “unfair competition” and “misleading advertising”.
This comparison inside courts The meeting between the two energy groups, surrounded by great anticipation and lasting about eight hours, served to gauge the arguments of both companies through their experts and lawyers.
After today’s hearing, the sentence of the president of the commercial court number 2 of Santander Carlos Martinez de Marigorta It could be known late this year or early 2025.
Iberdrola availed itself of the consultancy of the consultancy firms Nera and Roman Consulting, as well as the law firm Meaning is the contrarywhile Repsol made use of the expert Fernando Barrera, the consultancy firm LLYC and the law firm Teeth.
Iberdrola’s lawyer considered it demonstrated that the reported messages and advertising campaigns are “misleading”, because they do not adapt to the reality of Repsol’s activity, “they are not consistent” with the company’s investments and they omit essential data in their expressions sustainability relating to the company’s emissions and are therefore ”misleading”.
Meanwhile, experts who testified on behalf of Repsol reiterated that Iberdrola’s lawsuit is baseless, which is why the company asked for the lawsuit to be dismissed. Likewise, they underlined that the company is consistent in its advertising campaigns with its position on the market and underlined the group’s “real” effort to diversify its activities and be a “multi-energy company”.
In this regard, they also defended that despite the majority of their revenues coming from hydrocarbons, the company works to maintain its commitment to sustainability.
A pioneering cause
From a legal point of view, this case is pioneering, since “greenwashing” as such is not currently typical in the Spanish legal system.
In the case of the European Union, the fight against climate change has been set as one of the priority objectives, obliging itself to achieve a 55% reduction in emissions by 2030 and climate neutrality in 2050, and for this purpose various regulatory measures have been approved of mandatory application, in the fields of energy, sustainable finance or consumer protection.
In fact, there is the European directive on consumer empowerment for the green transition, approved in February and which introduces specific rules to address unfair and misleading commercial practices, such as ‘greenwashing’, although it has not yet been implemented for Spain.
Let’s talk about “greenwashing”
Iberdrola sources have indicated to Europa Press that the fact that ”we talk about ‘greenwashing’ is always positive for protecting consumers and the planet, and citizens demand this truthful and clear information, without deception, which is also demonstrated with the interest of the media”. “The sentence will be known in a few weeks, but the company has already expressed its opinion on this issue”, they added.
Specifically, the electricity company chaired by Ignacio Sánchez Galán was brought against Repsol under the Unfair Competition Law, based on the articles of misleading acts (art. 5), misleading omissions (art. 7) and illicit advertising (art. 18 ) as part of its advertising and institutional communication campaigns.
Limit competition
For their part, sources from the group led by Josu Jon Imaz underlined to Europa Press that Iberdrola “intends to limit Repsol’s competition in the electricity market – where the multi-energy company already has 2.4 million customers -, using the competition law unfair. using accusations of misleading advertising, based on partial arguments and decontextualized messages.”
“Repsol demonstrated at the hearing that it is the company in its sector that has reduced its emissions the most between 2019 and 2023, more than Iberdrola. Likewise, it is the company that is present in the greatest number of low-carbon companies carbon emissions and covers investments in many more decarbonisation technologies than Iberdrola,” they added.
Furthermore, they recalled that Autocontrol had already agreed with them regarding one of their campaigns, which the electricity company had complained about before the advertising regulatory body, and, on the other hand, “this same body asked to Iberdrola to rectify one of its campaigns because I believe it misled consumers.”
For this reason, the group defended that “it is within its right to communicate its progress in the energy transition with the aim of becoming a net zero emissions company in 2050, a commitment recognized by numerous institutions of international prestige” and its ” true “commitment” to decarbonisation, “as demonstrated by the steps taken in recent years, as well as the net investments envisaged in its strategic plan, between 5,600 and 6,600 million euros in four years.”
With this lawsuit, Iberdrola requests that it be declared that Repsol is carrying out acts of unfair competition, condemning the company to cease carrying them out, prohibiting their future repetition and removing their effects.
Likewise, Repsol’s ruling is requested to be published in the ‘Press Room’ section of its corporate website, as well as on radio and television, at least once a day for a week, on the same channels and in the same time slot and duration. the contents declared illicit, as well as in two newspapers with the greatest national circulation, and on social networks (Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube, Flickr and TikTok).
How might the legal battle between Iberdrola and Repsol influence future sustainability regulations in Spain?
Interview Between Time.news Editor and Energy Expert
Editor: Welcome, and thank you for joining us today! We have an intriguing case to discuss involving two of the biggest players in the Spanish energy market: Iberdrola and Repsol. As we know, Iberdrola has accused Repsol of unfair competition and misleading advertising. To shed light on this situation, we’re joined by Dr. Ana Torres, an expert in energy law and sustainability practices. Dr. Torres, what are your initial thoughts on this legal battle?
Dr. Torres: Thank you for having me! This case is quite significant, not just for the companies involved but for the broader energy sector in Spain and beyond. Iberdrola’s allegations against Repsol touch upon delicate issues like “greenwashing,” which is becoming increasingly important as companies strive to present themselves as environmentally responsible. This trial highlights the tension in the energy market as traditional fossil fuel companies, like Repsol, reinvent themselves to fit the new narrative of sustainability.
Editor: You mentioned “greenwashing.” Can you elaborate on what that entails and why it’s becoming a focal point in this case?
Dr. Torres: Certainly! “Greenwashing” refers to the practice of companies misleading consumers about their environmental practices or the benefits of their products. It is a growing concern as we see more corporations trying to market themselves as sustainable while their core business practices may contradict that claim. In this case, Iberdrola alleges that Repsol’s advertising campaigns contain misleading messages that do not accurately represent their sustainability efforts, which they argue could deceive consumers.
Editor: Repsol, on the other hand, argues that they’re committed to becoming a “multi-energy company” and have made progress in diversifying away from hydrocarbons. How does that fit into this discussion?
Dr. Torres: Repsol’s position is interesting as they highlight their investments in low-carbon initiatives and their efforts to reduce emissions significantly. However, the crux of the issue lies in whether their advertising accurately reflects these efforts and whether Iberdrola’s accusations hold merit. The legal framework currently doesn’t offer many precedents in Spain for cases around “greenwashing,” so this trial could set a significant legal benchmark.
Editor: Speaking of the legal framework, you noted that the Spanish legal system hasn’t typically addressed “greenwashing” as a legal concept. Could this case lead to changes in how such practices are regulated in Spain?
Dr. Torres: Absolutely. The outcome of this case could influence future regulations and set a precedent for how companies communicate about their sustainability efforts. If Iberdrola wins, it might push for more stringent rules against misleading advertising in the energy sector. It could also serve as a catalyst for the Spanish implementation of the recent EU directive addressing unfair and misleading commercial practices.
Editor: As the trial progresses, what should consumers be mindful of regarding energy companies’ claims about sustainability and environmental impact?
Dr. Torres: Consumers need to be vigilant about the information companies provide and look for transparency in their claims. It’s essential to seek out third-party validations and reports on sustainability initiatives rather than taking corporate advertisements at face value. Education plays a crucial role in empowering consumers to make informed decisions in an era where “green” claims are ubiquitous but not always reliable.
Editor: We appreciate your insights, Dr. Torres. It seems clear that this case has far-reaching implications not just for Iberdrola and Repsol, but for the entire energy sector and how it communicates sustainability to the public. We’ll be watching closely as the verdict approaches. Thank you for your time!
Dr. Torres: Thank you for having me! It’s been a pleasure discussing this important topic with you.