Only real leather can be called leather: historic German ruling defends consumer rights

A significant victory for consumer protection, reaffirming the right to clear, transparent, and non-misleading information about the products people purchase was established by a landmark ruling from the Oberlandesgericht of Cologne (the Higher Regional Court of Cologne), in Germany, which recently declared that only real leather can legally be called “leather”, banning the use of terms like “Apfelleder” (apple leather) for materials that contain no animal-derived components.

The appeal, upheld by the Court, was brought by the German Leather Industry Association (Verband der Deutschen Lederindustrie e.V. – VDL), a member of the Confederation of National Associations of Tanners and Dressers of the European Community (COTANCE).

An unjustified and misleading wording

The terminology dispute was initiated when a company producing dog collars and leashes described them as made from “Apfelleder”, a material composed of fruit waste and plastic coatings. The Court ruled that using the term “Leder” (leather) in this context is unjustified and misleading, as it implies the presence of genuine leather, which is completely absent. According to the judges, such wording could deceive consumers into believing they are purchasing a natural and authentic product, when in fact it is a synthetic material.

By definition, leather is a material of animal origin, obtained through the tanning of raw hides. The term “Apfelleder” is therefore ambiguous and potentially misleading for consumers, who might mistakenly interpret it as real leather tanned with plant-based substances, as is the case with materials treated with natural extracts, such as “Olivenleder” (olive leather) or “Rhabarberleder” (rhubarb leather).

A turning point for the leather sector

The Court also pointed out that the word “vegan” appeared only in secondary sections of the website promoting the products, and was not immediately visible, making the information incomplete, lacking in transparency, and insufficient to protect the consumer. It therefore definitively banned the use of the term “Apfelleder” for products that do not contain at least a minimal amount of real leather.

The ruling marks a turning point for the entire traditional leather sector and sets an important precedent in the regulation of labelling for alternative materials to animal leather. It serves as a clear warning against greenwashing, the practice of using misleading “eco-friendly” labels or terminology to sell products that are not genuinely sustainable. It reaffirms a fundamental principle: only materials derived from animal hides can legally be called leather, while all others, even if similar in appearance or texture, must be clearly and accurately labelled to avoid ambiguity and prevent consumer deception.

Leather sector: not against innovation, but against misleading labels

Gustavo Gonzalez-Quijano, Secretary-General of COTANCE, welcomed the decision, calling it “a victory not only for the leather industry, but for all consumers, and truth and transparency in marketing.” “We are not against innovation,” he stated, “but against misleading labels that confuse consumers and devalue authentic, natural materials.”

Andreas Meyer, Managing Director of VDL, also expressed satisfaction with the ruling, reaffirming that materials made from fruit waste or plastic composites cannot be called “leather” simply because they visually resemble it. The use of terms like “apple leather” or “cactus leather” when no genuine leather is present constitutes a form of deceptive advertising that can undermine public trust.

Leather is leather only if it comes from an animal

The ruling from the Cologne Court of Appeal sends a strong and clear message: leather is leather only if it comes from an animal. This reaffirms a simple but essential concept, paving the way for greater transparency in the market for “alternative” materials. This principle extends beyond this specific case, as it protects consumers’ rights in general to be clearly and truthfully informed.

The case has also drawn attention at the European level, highlighting the growing need for stricter regulations on product naming, misleading labels and deceptive practices in the EU – a significant step forward in combating greenwashing and promoting transparency.