---
title: "Build an environmental-claims evidence table against ACCC greenwashing guidance"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/competition-and-consumer-law/build-an-environmental-claims-evidence-table/commonwealth"
type: "task_jurisdiction_version"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A29-T1-R7-CTH"
practice_area: "Competition & Consumer Law (ACCC / ACL)"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
jurisdictions: ["CTH"]
last_reviewed: "2026-09-23"
---

# Build an environmental-claims evidence table against ACCC greenwashing guidance

> Extract carbon-neutral, recycled-content, offset and similar claims, with the client's evidence beside each, against ACL ss 18 and 29 and ACCC greenwashing guidance.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/competition-and-consumer-law/build-an-environmental-claims-evidence-table/commonwealth  
Last reviewed: 2026-09-23

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Competition & Consumer Law (ACCC / ACL)](https://ailawframework.com/practice/competition-and-consumer-law.md) |
| Human involvement | Yellow: Lawyer and AI draft together |
| How AI is used | Extract carbon-neutral, recycled-content, offset and similar claims, with the client's evidence beside each, against ACL ss 18 and 29 and ACCC greenwashing guidance. |
| What the lawyer must review | Check substantiation and qualifier prominence for each medium Note ACCC v Clorox ($8.25m, 7 Feb 2025) is ACL Note ASIC v Vanguard ($12.9m, Sept 2024) is s 1041H Corporations Act / s 12DA ASIC Act Check sector action and ACCC 2025-26 and 2026-27 priorities |
| Written for | Commonwealth |
| Applies to | [Build an environmental-claims evidence table](https://ailawframework.com/practice/competition-and-consumer-law/build-an-environmental-claims-evidence-table.md) |

## Checking plan

**Lawyer review required**

The responsible lawyer reviews the work against the instructions, sources and intended use.

- What the AI does: Potential support includes preparing preliminary structure or wording and summarising source material. Confirm the tool’s capability and permitted scope.
- What the lawyer does: Set the scope, verify the evidence, resolve exceptions and approve the final output for its intended use.
- Who reviews: Responsible lawyer with competence in the matter
- Basis: Suggested checking approach based on the task guidance. Complete the assessment for the actual tool, information and jurisdiction.
- Why: The plan reflects the described work and review requirements. Policy colours are not used to determine permission or checking.

## Checks the lawyer makes

1. Trace every relied-on figure to its source, confirm dates and assumptions, and independently recalculate totals or derived amounts.
2. Verify the applicable jurisdiction and the version of each relevant law, rule or instrument in force at the material time.
3. Confirm the output against the client’s instructions and the complete relevant source material, including omissions or contradictions.
4. Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.

## Notes

- Confirm the required checking with the responsible lawyer before work starts. The checking approach does not establish permission to use AI.

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*