In a landmark judgment, the district court of The Hague upheld the fossil ad ban adopted by the municipality of The Hague, rejecting a challenge brought by travel companies. The judgment confirms that government bodies have significant leeway to enact regulations that contribute towards goals of public health and climate mitigation, also where those regulations may affect the commercial operations of certain businesses.

Read the judgment (Dutch) →

 Why fossil ad bans?

Advertising promotes more consumption of the advertised product. The same applies to fossil ads. Given the need to quickly reduce the current overconsumption of fossil products, the call is becoming stronger to ban the ads that encourage more consumption.

There is a growing body of reports showing the importance of fossil ad bans, as an essential part of the policy toolkit to reduce and de-normalise the consumption of fossil fuels. These reports are in line with earlier policy moves to ban tobacco advertising, that have contributed to lowering and de-normalizing consumption.

Several authoritative sources have underlined the added value of a fossil ad ban as part of the policy mix that government bodies should adopt to lower fossil consumption. Examples include the IPCC (2022 6^th assessment report, working group 3), the UN Environment Programme (2020 Emissions Gap Report) and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (2020 Social tipping points article). A recent article in Nature Climate Change discusses the added value of an ad ban at the local level. 

The UN Secretary-General and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights have both called for a fossil ad ban. In April 2025, two UN Special Rapporteurs joined the plea for such a ban. The UN Special Rapporteurs placed great emphasis on the significant public health impact of burning fossil fuels, echoing earlier statements by the World Health Organization that the direct and indirect effects of fossil fuel consumption presents a key threat to public health. All these challenges require a major reduction in fossil fuel consumption, which is at odds with continuing to allow fossil ads that seek to expand demand.

Several advisory bodies in the Netherlands have also stressed the importance of a fossil ad ban, including the Dutch Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR), TNO, the Dutch Council for the Environment and Infrastructure (Rli), the Dutch Scientific Climate Council (WKR) and CE Delft. Some of these studies explicitly refer to the importance of an ad ban in the public space, which is regulated by municipalities.

What does the ad ban in The Hague entail?

The ban in The Hague covers ads in the city’s public space advertising fossil products, such as flight tickets and cruise holidays. This was the world’s first ban enacted in a binding regulation – other (local) ad bans were the result of contractual arrangements between government bodies and operators of outdoor advertising.

Background of the court case

Travel companies challenged the ad ban, arguing that the ban is unlawful. The plaintiffs initiated summary proceedings against the municipality before the district court of The Hague. They put forward several arguments, including that the municipality does not have the authority to enact such a ban. They also argued that the ad ban violated EU law and the freedom of speech (protected e.g. by the European Convention on Human Rights). The plaintiffs argued that the ad ban is ineffective as it will not limit climate change.

Reclame Fossielvrij, an NGO advocating for a fossil ad ban, intervened in the proceedings supporting the municipality. Advocates for the Future supported Reclame Fossielvrij in its intervention.

The court judgment

The district court dismissed all the arguments by the plaintiffs, and rejected their request to declare the ad ban unlawful. 

Important elements of the judgment includes:

• The municipality has the authority to adopt an ad ban under Dutch law. That competence is tied to the public interest within the municipality’s territory. According to the court, the municipality has sufficiently shown that the ad ban can contribute to local public health and to mitigation of climate change, which also benefits people residing within The Hague. It’s not relevant that the contribution of the ban towards these goals is relatively small: “every little bit helps”, as the court noted.

• The ad ban does not violate the freedom of speech.
  • The Dutch constitution does not protect commercial speech covered by the ad ban.
  • The European Convention of Human Rights does apply to commercial speech, but governments have a wide margin of discretion to restrict such speech. The court held that the ad ban is justified, as it can contribute to public health and climate change mitigation. This contribution relates to the municipality’s sphere of influence, which is the regulation of public space.

• The ad ban is in line with EU law. The court found the restriction necessary and proportionate to protect public health and the environment. There was no indication that the ban discriminates unfairly against non-Dutch EU entities.

• The ban is sufficiently clear. Even if it’s possible that questions may sometimes arise about the application of the ban, that does not mean the ban is unlawful. The ban is directed towards professional parties, which may be expected to acquire advice on whether the ban applies in a certain case.

• The municipality has conducted a lawful balancing of interests. The court confirmed that the municipality was able to strike this balance between public interest and the commercial interests of the advertisers. The court held: “[i]t 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.” (para 5.26)

This judgment confirms that government bodies such as municipalities have leeway to enact climate mitigation measures – also where those measures may negatively impact the commercial operations of specific companies.

The court rejected the “drop in the ocean” argument brought forward by the plaintiffs. According to the court, the legal analysis should focus on whether a measure can contribute to the reduction of fossil fuel consumption. The judgment confirms that an ad ban qualifies as such. 

The court attached much value to advisory reports and academic studies showing the added value of a fossil ad ban, also at the local level.

What’s next?

The plaintiffs have the possibility to appeal the judgment. It is currently unclear whether they will do so. Given their public statements in the media, it’s likely that the plaintiffs will continue litigation. It would be a pity if the tourism industry would rather spend its time, money and energy trying to oppose government regulation in court – rather than focus its efforts on creating a truly sustainable tourism sector fit for the future.