California is taking a bold step to hold the world’s largest oil companies accountable for their alleged role in climate change.
The state attorney-general, Rob Bonta, invoked a new state law on Monday that allows claimants to target company profits directly linked to violations of consumer protection and advertising laws.
An updated filing in the ongoing lawsuit against ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP, and ConocoPhillips highlights recent examples of alleged “false advertising and misleading environmental marketing.”
California seeks to have the profits generated from this deception deposited into a victims’ restitution fund.
The Growing Legal Battle Against Fossil Fuel Companies
This move is part of a broader trend of US states and cities turning to the courts to challenge oil and gas companies.
They are utilizing consumer protection, racketeering, product liability, and other laws to seek damages and cover climate-related costs. The number of climate-related court cases globally has doubled between 2017 and summer 2023, with the majority filed in the US.
The lawsuit comes at a time when the fossil fuel industry has amassed record profits due to soaring energy prices following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
The top 10 listed US fossil fuel producers earned a combined net income of $313 billion in the first three years of the Biden administration, almost triple the amount under Trump. Oil and gas production in the US reached record levels in 2023.
California’s Allegations of Deception and Damage
California’s lawsuit alleges that oil and gas executives knowingly suppressed information about the catastrophic consequences of relying on fossil fuels.
It claims this deception delayed societal responses to global warming, resulting in billions of dollars in damages to California, including drought, wildfires, and severe storms.
The state’s latest filing presents new evidence of company lobbying, alongside the US industry group, the American Petroleum Institute (API), to make “false and misleading statements” in advertisements across major US news outlets.
Industry Response and Legal Outlook
The API argues that climate policy should be determined by Congress, not courts. They consider the lawsuit a politically motivated distraction and a waste of taxpayer resources.
Shell maintains that the courtroom is not the appropriate venue to address climate change, advocating for government policy and action from all sectors instead. Other defendants either declined to comment on active litigation or did not respond to requests for comment.
The outcome of this lawsuit and others like it could have significant implications for the fossil fuel industry and its responsibility for climate change. As legal battles escalate, the world watches closely to see how the courts will interpret the companies’ actions and their role in the climate crisis.