July 22, 2025

Leather or not? Why the Cologne ruling matters

A legal challenge brought by the German Leather Industry Association, Verband der Deutschen Lederindustrie (VDL), arguing that labelling plastic-based products as “apple leather” misleads consumers and undermines the integrity of genuine leather, was upheld by the Higher Regional Court of Cologne.

It pronounced that the use of the term “apple leather” without actual leather content was deceptive and unlawful. Mina Merchandising GmbH had refused a request to stop advertising plastic-based dog collars labelled as “apple leather”. Such advertising is now prohibited.

The Brazilian leather law (1965), followed by others like Italy (2019) and Portugal (2022), demonstrates a few successes in a long battle to have the definition of leather legally protected to stop the deliberate “passing off” of inferior materials as leather. Over the years, there have been similar successful court cases in the U.S. (bonded leather furniture) and the UK (Mercedes cars’ synthetic leather seating), mostly initiated by disgruntled consumers, but this is the first time I have seen the outcomes widely circulated.

Doing so will encourage more trade bodies and tanners to bring similar cases. It has clearly escalated the legal risks for anyone marketing plant-based or recycled synthetics, often with the clear intention of exploiting leather’s established market reputation built over thousands of years. It should certainly encourage stronger activity towards a global standard for fibre and material labelling. I hear of mislabelling in the U.S. and issues in Australia, and if true, these should be fully prosecuted.

Any qualified marketing executive in the industry will have been taught to scan the macro-environmental issues for key current and future business concerns. Many are areas where tanneries expect advice, help and support from their national bodies. The legal work done by the LHCA to achieve the settlement on Proposition 65 (CrVI) is an admirable example.

Successes like these influence all aspects of the macro-environment for leather and offer many opportunities to an industry willing to keep its major associations – national, IULTCS and Leather Naturally – strong enough to act. The ruling directly intersects with the Political, Environmental and Legal aspects of the PESTEL model, but I would say it has implications for all of them.

The Cologne case underlines the importance of honest labelling and helps to reinforce consumer trust in leather, increasing its differentiation from synthetics. It strengthens the brand authenticity of leather and encourages tanners to leverage their heritage and craftsmanship as unique selling points – yes, USPs do still matter.

The ruling highlights the risks of “greenwashing” – whether by synthetics or leather. Tanners must use all available means to keep leather clearly defined in the minds of consumers, a much harder task in today’s increasingly urbanised society. Therefore, they should push the transparent sustainability benefits of leather while this ruling gives them momentum.

With a fair wind, consumers demanding sustainable materials may now distrust all alternative materials, fearing misleading claims, as alternates face expensive rebranding or court cases. Materials like PU/apple will need to find less catchy but legally safe names.

An aggressive industry response will likely lead to problems if tanneries fail to self-police their pollution and managerial ethics. It puts pressure on every tannery to accelerate all activity that improves the industry as a whole. How “real” is the leather you make? If apple, pineapple or other material is 30-50% plastic, how good is the tanner’s corrected grain, automotive leather, patent leather or coated split for athletic footwear? How long before the fibre and material definition rules demand that leather adhere to tighter labelling restrictions regarding chemical content?

This is a battle about the future of materials

Tanners need to recognise this is a battle about consumer trust, the future of materials in a new age, and the entire approach to sustainability narratives.

If the leather industry is to pivot from defence to offence, we need to be able to talk better about traceability, animal welfare, chemical compliance, tannery pollution, and labour law adherence – the full ESG agenda. And while arguing about the hidden costs of alternates and the authenticity of leather, tanners must be careful about their own use of advanced technologies.

Many “advances” in leather making do not appear to have improved leather to the extent expected. Lower grades have often become commodities, and many new chemicals introduced have been withdrawn after discovery of carcinogenic risks or forever chemical content. Technical advances need to stay true to valuing the whole range of hides and skins, reducing rather than increasing chemical usage, and building on the craft and authenticity features born of leather’s unmatched history.

Leather has, after all, been perfected by nature over 10,000 years and carries a vast historic lexicon of bio-based solutions to be studied and potentially reused, before rushing down a petrochemical route. Leather makes good use of a waste to create value and natural beauty; synthetics are creating entirely new wastes in mammoth quantities.

The ethical storytelling of leather

This also applies to labour-saving measures, which often lead to a decline in quality and the deskilling of artisan staff in return for a short-term price gain. Celebrating the retention of craft should be part of the ethical storytelling of leather.

The Cologne ruling offers a new impetus at a difficult moment, and congratulations are due to those involved. We must use it as a catalyst to ensure that leather is known everywhere as an animal-only material, while at the same time aggressively addressing the leather industry’s own social and environmental deficiencies. Tanners must make leather truly better for consumers and use relentless innovation to co-opt and maintain the sustainability narrative.

This war is not about banning alternatives – good and honest ones should prosper post-Cologne – it is about making and keeping leather the material leader it deserves to be.

Michael Redwood

Leather chemist, writer, and advisor on responsible leather manufacturing and material strategy. This article was originally written for ILM.