Court Rules: Judge Upholds Fossil Fuel Ad Ban, Tosses Industry Argument Against The Hague

The Hague, Netherlands – April 25, 2025 – Today, a Dutch court ruled on The Hague’s ban on fossil fuel advertisements for air travel and cruise travel, the first of its kind in the world. 

This is the first time worldwide that a court has vetted a municipal ad ban. It confirms that (local) governments can lawfully take necessary climate action, also where it might be contrary to economic interests of polluting companies. 

With this historic ruling, The Hague has set a precedent that allows many other municipalities to ban fossil fuel advertisements like ads for air travel and cruise travel through local ordinances. Reclame Fossielvrij, the NGO that launched the campaign to ban fossil fuel ads in the Netherlands, is delighted with the verdict.

“This is a breakthrough for the fossil ad ban and for the health of people and planet. Municipalities around the world can now clear their streets of ads that fuel the climate crisis,” said Femke Sleegers of Reclame Fossielvrij (Fossil Free Advertising). “Just as anti-smoking policies are ineffective when tobacco ads are everywhere, we can’t have effective climate policy while fossil fuel products are promoted on every street corner.” 

CAAD convened a virtual press conference on Monday, April 28  to hear about the impacts of the ruling from Robert Barker, deputy mayor of The Hague (Party for the Animals), Tjarda van der Vijver, attorney-at-law from Advocates for the Future, and Tourism professor Harald Buijtendijk.

Selected quotes from the virtual press conference (recording available by request): 

Robert Barker, Alderman from The Hague:  

• “As the Hague, we’re of course, the center of the National Government and a UN City, a center of peace and justice, and because we are a city at sea, you want to actually prevent becoming a city in the sea. So you have quite an incentive to do something about tackling climate change.“
• “These arguments could apply to smoking, could apply to alcohol, and we limit those ads. So if you say that smoking is bad for your lungs. We also say fossil fuel, and we know fossil fuels are bad for the lungs of the Earth, the planet. So if you take that parallel, it’s quite logical that you come to a ban on advertising.” 
• “I’m very happy that we won the front runner, but I would be even more happy if other towns and cities around the world take over. I think the court case, but also our policy, shows that it’s possible. And it would be very good if you get a positive snowball effect on this to make it successful around the world, and in that way contribute to tackling the climate crisis.”

Harald Buijtendijk, Breda University: 

• “A fossil advertisement ban in the public space is sound policy. There is no scientific question about it when it comes to the science on tourism and climate change.” 
• “Only 25% of trips worldwide are aviation based. But they cost 75% of the global tourism emissions.”

Femke Sleegers of Reclame Fossielvrij: 

• “this verdict is really a major breakthrough. It’s a breakthrough for the fossil ad bans in the Netherlands and worldwide. And it’s a breakthrough for the health of people and the planet.”
• “The court really prioritizes the human rights and the health of people and planets above the financial interests of the polluting companies. And that’s why we think this verdict can really unleash a snowball effect, both in the Netherlands and abroad. And ironically, it was exactly this snowball effect that the travel industry feared it was the reason they sued the municipality. So their court case now comes back to them like a boomerang.”
• “The fossil ad ban is backed by science, by health professionals and by human rights proponents.” 

Tjarda van der Vijver, director of Advocates for the Future: 

• “They said it was ineffective and will not lower emissions… this is not going to change anything. People will not change their behavior well on the other side, because they have to show good reason to start a lawsuit. They also said, This ban is going to hurt us. On the one hand, they say this ineffective is not going to change anything, and, on the other hand, ‘we are very much concerned.’ That’s why they threw a lot of resources and time and lawyers at this problem.”
• “The District Court of the Hague and Paul de Frost dismissed all the plaintiff’s arguments, it upheld the ban, the ban remains in place, and the court observed that the municipality has a wide margin of appreciation to enact laws with a view to protect local public interest.”

Selected quotes from the verdict (our own translation):

“After all, the Municipality has sufficiently substantiated that the advertising ban, within the limits of its legal authority, can contribute to countering the effects of climate change and to improving the health of the residents and visitors of The Hague.” (5.17)

 “After all, the general public health interests of the citizens are solely  balanced against the commercial interest of the advertisers. It is therefore no surprise that this balancing of interests turned out unfavorably for the advertisers.” (5.26)

“It is not up to the Municipality to refrain from taking measures to promote the health of its residents in order to strengthen the future (financial) position of travel providers.” (5.26)

It comes after a recent survey from the Climate Action Against Disinformation coalition showing a majority of Dutch people support the ban as a way to slow the spread of climate disinformation, as well as a Nature Climate Change study showing such a policy has twice the level of active support across Europe as it does opposition. 

The following expert quotes are available to inform your coverage: 

• “This court ruling marks a milestone. It shows that municipalities are not powerless, but do in fact have tools to tackle the climate crisis. The Hague was the first city in the world to ban fossil ads from the public space since these ads accelerate climate change. It would be great if many more cities around the world followed suit, each making their own contribution to a better, more sustainable future,” says Robert Barker, deputy mayor of The Hague (Party for the Animals).
• “Cities have a responsibility to take climate action. A fossil ad ban is a key measure that contributes to lower consumption, and to denormalise fossil consumption”, said Tjarda van der Vijver, attorney-at-law from Advocates for the Future 
• “The Hague’s ban on fossil fuel advertising is a landmark breakthrough for the protection of public health that will reverberate around the world”, said Dr Jeni Miller, Executive Director of the Global Climate and Health Alliance. “City mayors and policymakers around the world must take inspiration from The Hague’s by also putting an end to fossil fuel adverts. The public health community can play its part – many years ago it helped lead the push for tobacco control and an advertising ban, and now we are on the cusp of achieving the same for fossil fuels – ending advertising is another step towards cleaner air, and cutting emissions.”
• “A ban on advertisements for carbon intensive tourism services is a sound policy action, realistically timed to push for real change and firmly in line with the latest science on tourism’s climate impact”, said tourism scientist Eke Eijgelaar (senior researcher at Buas’ Centre for Sustainability, Tourism and Transport) together with 19 other tourism scientists and experts in an expert statement to the court.
• “Fossil fuel advertisements undermine other climate measures that aim to  promote sustainable behaviour:  it’s like mopping with the tap open as long as people are simultaneously exposed to ads that promote the exact opposite”, says professor Jan Willem Bolderdijk (Amsterdam University) who co-wrote an advice to the Dutch government stating a fossil ad ban is essential. “A ban prevents fossil-intensive products and services from being portrayed as attractive, normal, and desirable. It’s an indispensable link in a broader package of measures that together can bring about a tipping point in consumption norms.”
• “Fossil fuel ad bans protect our rights to life, health, a healthy environment and information in the context of climate change. Had countries controlled tobacco advertising earlier, millions of lives could have been saved. Let’s avoid making the same mistake and ban fossil ads now”, said Elisa Morgera, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Climate Change who wrote an article in favor of fossil ad bans together with Astrid Puentes Riaño, the Special Rapporteur on the human right to a Healthy Environment.
• “Using the legal system to try and block progress instead of reducing its pollution is one of many tactics that industry uses to defend itself from the overwhelming public demand for climate action,” said Timmons Roberts of Brown University and the Climate Social Science Network.  
• “By introducing and successfully defending their high-carbon ad ban, The Hague has taken a bold step in the right direction when it comes to climate action.  As we saw decades ago with tobacco products, banning the advertising of a harmful product is a critical step in reducing its use.  Just like the tobacco ban, fossil fuel advertising restrictions comply with EU law – as it is clearly in the public interest for cities and states to address the climate crisis.  Cities the world over would be wise to follow The Hague’s lead and introduce a similar law to help usher in an era of depleting dependence on fossil fuels – and feel confident with the wind of this judgment behind them.”  – Jonathan White, ClientEarth Lawyer
• “Polluters will fight climate policy every step of the way, so it’s always important to remember that the public is broadly supportive of climate action like the Hague’s ban on fossil fuel ads,” said CAAD communications co-chair Philip Newell. “As other local leaders are looking for opportunities to stand up to polluters, cleaning up public spaces by banning fossil fuel advertisements should be considered a popular opportunity.”

The case against the fossil fuel ad ban in The Hague, brought by the tourism industry (amongst which TUI), is the latest example of the lengths to which polluters will go in defense of their profits, instead of changing their business practices to align with climate commitments.

For more information, including a recording of the virtual press conference, contact CAAD communications co-chair Philip Newell: [email protected]

• Link to the court judgement here
• For more details on the court case see here (translated)
• For more on worldwide developments see World Without Fossil Ads