Climate Litigation Updates (August 31, 2026)
The Sabin Center for Climate Change Law publishes monthly summaries of developments in climate-related litigation. We also add these developments to The Climate Litigation Database on an ongoing basis. If you know of any cases we have missed, please email us at [email protected]. Thanks to JeeHyun Chung for assistance in preparing this update.
HERE ARE THE ADDITIONS TO THE CLIMATE LITIGATION DATABASE FOR UPDATE #214
U.S. DECISIONS AND SETTLEMENTS
FEATURED CASES
New Zealand: Law Enacted to Stop Climate Litigation
Michael John Smith (Ngāpuhi, Ngāti Kahu), climate change spokesperson for the Iwi Chairs’ Forum, a Māori development platform, filed a case against seven high-emitting New Zealand companies in the agriculture and energy sectors: Fonterra Co-Operative Group Ltd , Genesis Energy Ltd, Dairy Holdings Ltd, New Zealand Steel Ltd, Z Energy Ltd, Channel Infrastructure NZ Ltd and BT Mining Ltd. Mr Smith claimed that the defendants’ actions constituted (1) public nuisance, (2) negligence, and (3) breach of a duty to cease contributing to climate change. As of March 31, 2022, after an appeal to the New Zealand Supreme Court, all three causes of action were allowed to proceed.
Pending the substantive hearing, scheduled for 15 weeks commencing in April 2027, however, the New Zealand Government announced on May 12, 2026, that it would seek to introduce a legislative ban to prohibit the current case from proceeding to the substantive trial. It also announced that it will establish a statutory bar to prevent any further tort claims pertaining to greenhouse gas emitters in New Zealand. The bill entered into force on August 24. Smith v. Fonterra Co-Operative Group Limited(New Zealand, High Court of New Zealand)
En Banc D.C. Circuit Affirmed Preliminary Injunction Blocking EPA Termination of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund Grants but Did Not Offer Consensus Rationale; Court Continued Partial Administrative Stay of Injunction
On August 4, 2026, the en banc D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the entirety a district court’s April 2025 preliminary injunction that barred the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from effectuating its March 11, 2025 notice of termination of grants under the Inflation Reduction Act’s (IRA’s) Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF). The preliminary injunction also restricted EPA’s ability to suspend or terminate the plaintiffs’ grant awards; restricted defendant Citibank’s ability to move funds out of accounts established in connection with the plaintiffs’ grants; prohibited EPA from influencing Citibank to limit access to funds in such accounts; and required Citibank to disburse funds “properly incurred” before the suspension of the plaintiffs’ funds. The six judges who voted to affirm the injunction were split on the injunction’s scope. Six judges voted to affirm the portion of the injunction enjoining EPA from effectuating its notice of termination because they concluded that (1) EPA’s attempt to terminate the grants and claw back disbursed funds “based solely on a policy disagreement” with Section 60103 of the IRA “likely contravened the IRA’s mandatory appropriation” and (2) EPA did not argue or show it would not still take those steps in the absence of the injunction. Five of those judges would have affirmed the entire preliminary injunction because they concluded that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s (OBBBA’s) repeal of Section 60103 in 2025 “likely does not affect the applicability of Section 60103 to grant funds that were obligated and disbursed” at the time of the OBBBA’s enactment. The sixth judge would have vacated portions of the preliminary injunction because the EPA could not be enjoined to expend funds to administer the program after the OBBBA rescinded the program’s dedicated administrative funds; the sixth judge would have required defendant Citibank to keep funds in the plaintiffs’ accounts in place pending district court determinations on questions regarding EPA’s plans regarding primary grantees’ grant agreements and regarding the OBBBA’s effect on sub-grantees’ funds. Four judges would have vacated the provision barring EPA from effectuating the notice of termination based on their conclusion that the plaintiffs did not establish that the injunction was warranted after the repeal of Section 60103. The en banc court was equally divided as to (1) whether following the OBBBA’s enactment, EPA’s authority to suspend or terminate the grants was limited by both IRA Section 60103 and contractual terms or only by contractual terms and (2) whether any of the district court’s remaining grounds for the preliminary injunction would provide a basis for affirmance. Additional analysis of the decision is available in this Climate Law Blog post. On August 7, the court granted the government’s unopposed motion to stay the mandate and extend the partial administrative stay that had been in place since April 16, 2025. The stay—which stayed the portion of the injunction requiring the disbursement of funds—was extended through November 9, 2026. The court directed that if a petition for writ of certiorari is filed, the stay is to be extended pending the Supreme Court’s final disposition. Climate United Fund v. Citibank N.A., No. 25-5122 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 4, 2026)
South Africa: Constitutional Court effectively overturns the Supreme Court of Appeal’s decision and quashes a 10-year-old exploration right to search for oil and gas
On December 2, 2021, Sustaining the Wild Coast NPC, residents and fishers from affected communities, the Dwesa-Cwebe Communal Property Association, and All Rise Attorneys for Climate and Environmental Justice instituted proceedings in the Eastern Cape High Court. The applicants sought an interim interdict preventing the seismic survey pending judicial review of the exploration right and its renewals.
After a hearing on December 17, 2021, the South African High Court granted an interim order prohibiting the 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents from proceeding with a seismic survey on December 28, 2021. Following the interim decision, the main review for the application was heard on May 30th to 31st, 2022. On September 1, 2022, the High Court reviewed and set aside the original exploration right and its two renewals. On June 3, 2024, the Supreme Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s findings concerning the inadequacy of the consultation process and the failure to consider relevant matters. On July 2, 2024, the applicants appealed the suspension order to the Constitutional Court.
On August 14, 2026, the Constitutional Court delivered judgment. The majority agreed with the Supreme Court of Appeal that the High Court should have considered a just and equitable remedy and that its failure to do so permitted appellate reconsideration. However, it held that the Supreme Court of Appeal had misdirected itself in suspending the setting-aside order. The majority identified three problems. First, it treated the defects as if they could be cured principally through further consultation, although the High Court’s findings also included failure to consider climate change, the Integrated Coastal Management Act, the precautionary principle and applicable statutory requirements. Second, it contemplated addressing consultation required at the initial application stage under section 79 of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act through a renewal proceeding under section 81, which does not provide for consultation of that kind. Third, it did not specify who would conduct the consultation, how it would be conducted or how its results would be incorporated into the renewal decision. The majority held that consultation was part of the affected communities’ right to participate in decisions concerning their land, culture and livelihoods. It found that consultation conducted more than a decade after the original decision would not remedy the failure to consult the communities at the initial application stage.
As a result, the Constitutional Court set aside the Supreme Court of Appeal’s order and replaced it with an order dismissing the appeals from the High Court. The effect was to restore the High Court’s setting-aside of the 2014 exploration right and its two renewals. The opposing state and corporate respondents were ordered to pay the applicants’ costs, subject to separate costs orders concerning the environmental-authorization and procedural-record issues. The majority stated that setting aside the decisions did not amount to a substituted decision refusing exploration on its merits. If the offshore moratorium is lifted or successfully challenged, the companies may submit a new application under the legal and environmental requirements then applicable. The original right, its renewals and the pending third-renewal process cannot provide the basis for future exploration. Sustaining the Wild Coast NPC and Others v. Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and Others (South Africa, Constitutional Court)
U.S. DECISIONS AND SETTLEMENTS
Fourth Circuit Stayed District Court Order Requiring that Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grant Program Funds Be Made Available Through September 30, 2026
In a four-sentence order, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the federal government’s emergency motion for a stay pending appeal of a July 22, 2026 district court order directing that Inflation Reduction Act’s Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grant Program (ECJ Program) funds be made available through September 30, 2026. In the emergency motion, the federal government argued that the plaintiffs were not likely to succeed in defending the injunction on appeal because ECJ Program funds were not available due to Congress’s rescission of the funds. The government also argued that the district court did not and could not require EPA to obligate ECJ Program funds. In addition, the government argued that the district court’s preliminary injunction would irreparably harm the government and the public interest by requiring the disbursement of more than $1 billion that might never be recovered and by placing “an extreme administrative burden on EPA.” The government contended that the plaintiffs’ interest in the preliminary injunction was “relatively minimal,” including because they could seek damages in the Court of Federal Claims. One judge would have denied the motion. Sustainability Institute v. Trump, No. 2:25-cv-02152 (D.S.C. Aug. 3, 2026), No. 26-2040 (4th Cir. Aug. 20, 2026)
First Circuit Affirmed Preliminary Injunction that Blocked Categorical Freeze of Federal Funds but Said Court Lacked Authority to Order Monetary Payments
The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part and vacated in part a preliminary injunction that blocked certain federal agencies from categorically freezing the processing and payment of funds appropriated under the Inflation Reduction Act or the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. As a threshold matter, the court found that both the individual nonprofit plaintiffs and the National Council of Nonprofits, which premised its standing on the standing of its members, had standing for their Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claims, though the court said the National Council of Nonprofits could not assert claims against the Department of the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) because it did not identify members who received financial assistance from HUD. The First Circuit then rejected the federal government’s arguments that the plaintiffs impermissibly split their claims between two proceedings, that they did not challenge a “final agency action” that was subject to judicial review, and that the challenged actions were “committed to agency discretion by law” and were therefore not subject to judicial review. In addition, the First Circuit found that the district court did not err in determining that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that the challenged actions were arbitrary and capricious. The First Circuit further found that the plaintiffs showed that the effects of the loss of funding were irreparable harms and that the federal government did not show that the district court abused its discretion when it found that the equities favored the plaintiffs. Although the First Circuit affirmed the grant of “universal” injunctive relief that provided relief to nonparties, the court concluded that the court’s directive requiring monetary payments exceeded the court’s authority under the APA. Woonasquatucket River Watershed Council v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, No. 25-1428 (1st Cir. Aug. 7, 2026)
D.C. Circuit Said NEPA Challenge to Export-Import Bank Loan for Mozambique LNG Project Was Unlikely to Succeed
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction halting the disbursement of loan funds by the Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM) for the Mozambique Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Project. After the initial approval of the loan during the first Trump administration, work on the project halted in 2021 due to violent attacks in the area. In 2025, EXIM approved an amendment to the loan agreement after the project’s operator decided to resume work. Friends of the Earth U.S. and Justiça Ambiental challenged the 2025 approval. The D.C. Circuit agreed with the district court that the plaintiffs did not have organizational standing based either on EXIM’s failure to offer an opportunity to participate in notice and comment concerning the 2025 amendment or on the allegedly increased burden that the project would cause to the plaintiff organizations’ services. The D.C. Circuit also agreed with the district court that the organizations did not have informational standing based on their purported entitlement to EXIM’s economic analyses. Although the D.C. Circuit found that the record supported the organizations’ informational standing based on the alleged failure to provide environmental information, including National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) disclosures, the appellate court found that the organizations did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their NEPA claim. The D.C. Circuit cited NEPA’s exclusion of “extraterritorial activities or decisions, which means agency activities or decisions with effects located entirely outside of the jurisdiction of the United States.” The court was not persuaded by the organizations’ contention that the Mozambique LNG Project would result in indirect domestic effects, including increased carbon emissions. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2025 opinion in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, the D.C. Circuit found that the organizations did not show the “reasonably close causal relationship” between the Project and the “asserted downstream or attenuated effects in the United States” that would be required in order for NEPA to apply. The D.C. Circuit also found that circumstances had not triggered EXIM’s obligation to disclose environmental information under its Environmental and Social Due Diligence Procedures.
One judge dissented from the majority’s conclusion that the organizations had informational standing under NEPA; he would have concluded that they could not establish such standing because “they seek information about effects that Congress has expressly excluded from NEPA’s reach.” The dissenting opinion stated that the plaintiffs’ assertion that the project’s estimated 13 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions would “significantly contribute to climate change” was “precisely the kind of attenuated causal chain that NEPA does not reach” because “[a]ny net effect on emissions turns on inherently unknowable market responses affecting production and consumption, the independent decisions of foreign purchasers, the operations of foreign facilities, the dispersion of emissions through the global atmosphere, and the climate’s response over time.” The dissent further stated that “[a] causal chain dependent on so many intervening variables, independent actors, and uncertain consequences is the paradigmatic remote ripple beyond NEPA’s effects inquiry.” Friends of the Earth U.S. v. Export-Import Bank of the United States, No. 25-5387 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 19, 2026)
Ninth Circuit Rejected Dormant Commerce Clause Challenge to Allocation of Compliance Allowances for Implementation of Washington State Climate Law
In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of a dormant Commerce Clause challenge to the Washington State Department of Ecology’s (Ecology’s) enforcement of the Washington Climate Commitment Act’s (CCA’s) decarbonization requirements. The plaintiff, which owns and operates a natural gas-fired electric generation facility in Chehalis, Washington, argued that Ecology impermissibly discriminated against out-of-state customers that consumed electricity generated at the facility by allocating no-cost allowances for greenhouse gas emissions associated with electricity sent to Washington utility customers while requiring the purchase of allowances at auction for emissions associated with electricity sent to other states. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the in-state and out-of-state customers were not “similarly situated entities” as required to establish a violation of the dormant Commerce Clause because Washington’s Clean Energy Transformation Act (CETA) independently imposed decarbonization obligations on in-state power generation that did not apply to exported electricity. The dissenting judge wrote that the majority’s application of the “similarly situated entities” test to exclude Ecology’s regulation from dormant Commerce Clause scrutiny would improperly allow “state regulation that increases the costs of intrastate commerce to justify facial discrimination against interstate commerce, without requiring any assessment of the degree to which interstate commerce is burdened.” He wrote that “the proper course here is to remand this case for factual development as to whether CETA’s compliance costs and the CCA allowances are ‘roughly equivalent’ in a way that would justify Washington’s otherwise discriminatory treatment of interstate electricity sales.” PacifiCorp v. Sixkiller, No. 24-4803 (9th Cir. Aug. 7, 2026)
Ninth Circuit Denied Rehearing en Banc in Youth Challenge to President Trump’s Energy Executive Orders
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied youth plaintiff-appellants’ petition for rehearing en banc of the court’s June 2026 decision finding that they lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of three energy-related executive orders issued by President Trump. The Ninth Circuit’s order stated that the panel unanimously voted to deny the petition and that no judge on the full court requested a vote on whether to hear the matter en banc. Lighthiser v. Trump, No. 25-6714 (9th Cir. Aug. 10, 2026)
Other recent U.S. Court of Appeals decisions:
- Ninth Circuit Said NEPA and Endangered Species Act Reviews Not Required for Water Service Contract Conversions. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and other defendants in environmental organizations’ suit seeking to require NEPA review and Endangered Species Act consultation for the conversion of Central Valley Project “water service contracts” with California water districts to “repayment contracts.” The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court that the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act, which created the mechanism for these conversions, did not allow Reclamation to consider environmental effects or to take actions to benefit protected species as part of the conversion process. The plaintiffs’ arguments had included contentions that a NEPA alternatives analysis “would allow meaningful consideration of the trade-offs between water deliveries and environmental harm as well as opportunities to reduce deliveries over time,” including, for example, “to limit the term of the contract so as reduce quantities over time to reflect worsening conditions caused by climate change.” Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, No. 25-5137 (9th Cir. Aug. 17, 2026)
- Fifth Circuit Ruled that Energy Department Should Have Withdrawn 2024 Energy Conservation Standards for Stoves and Cooktops. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a petition for review challenging the direct final rule promulgated by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in 2024 that established energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking products such as stoves and cooktops. The court concluded that it had authority to review the petition and held that the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) required DOE to withdraw the direct final rule after comments identified “a reasonable basis” for doubting the rule’s legality under EPCA’s provision allowing promulgation of standards via direct final rule. The court remanded the matter to DOE. Mississippi v. U.S. Department of Energy, No. 24-60529 (5th Cir. Aug. 11, 2026)
- Ninth Circuit Reversed Portions of District Court Denials of Trade Group Interventions in States’ Challenge to Congress’s Disapproval of Preemption Waivers for California Vehicle Emission Regulations. In an unpublished memorandum, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in part the district court’s denial of trade groups’ motions to intervene in California and other states’ case challenging Congressional Review Act resolutions that disapproved Clean Air Act preemption waivers granted to California for three vehicle emission regulations. The Ninth Circuit found that three trade groups that represented either automakers or new motor vehicle dealers demonstrated entitlement to intervention as of right. Although the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of intervention as of right for six trade groups that relied on impacts on their economic interests through an “attenuated chain of causality,” the Ninth Circuit found that the district court abused its discretion in denying motions for permissive intervention because the district court concluded that federal defendants would adequately represent their interests. The court remanded for the district court to determine whether permissive intervention should be granted. California v. Trump, No. 25-8013, 26-88, 26-497, 26-525 (9th Cir. July 21, 2026)
Missouri Federal Court Dismissed Challenge to New York’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program but Subsequently Granted Plaintiffs Leave to File Opposition
On August 11, 2026, the federal district court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted the New York State Attorney General and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction a lawsuit brought by Iowa, Missouri, and the American Free Enterprise Chamber of Congress challenging New York’s greenhouse gas reporting program. The court declined to find that the New York officials were subject to general jurisdiction in Missouri and found that the plaintiffs’ allegations failed to establish that the officials had sufficient minimum contacts with Missouri to satisfy due process requirements for specific jurisdiction. The court denied an alternative motion to dismiss for lack of venue as moot. On August 12, the plaintiffs requested leave to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss. They contended that although the court’s opinion stated that they failed to file a response to the motion to dismiss, the agreed-to briefing schedule provided for them to file their opposition by August 14. The court allowed them to file the opposition, in which the plaintiffs argued that the New York officials “purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of governing” in Missouri “[b]y projecting New York’s coercive authority into Missouri.” They argued that the defendants “committed a tortious act in the jurisdictional sense,” providing a basis for personal jurisdiction and venue. Iowa v. James, No. 4:26-CV-752 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 11, 2026)
Illinois and Colorado Federal Courts Rejected Preemption Challenges to Local Building Electrification Laws
On July 30, 2026, the federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled that the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) did not preempt the Village of Oak Park’s 2023 ordinance that provided that most new buildings and residences are required to use electricity as their “source of energy” and may not combust “fossil fuels” indoors. The ordinance implemented Climate Ready Oak Park (CROP), which the court described as “a comprehensive planning framework under which the Village plans to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and protect its residents’ health, safety, and welfare.” The court said the plaintiff challenging the ordinance “heavily” relied on the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkeley to argue “that EPCA preempts state regulations concerning energy use and energy use is defined as a quantity of energy consumed by a consumer” and that the ordinance’s requirement “that the ‘quantity’ of energy made by fossil fuels be zero” was therefore preempted. The district court, however, agreed with the Village and the Second Circuit in Association of Contracting Plumbers of the City of New York v. City of New York that “energy use” in EPCA “refers to a predetermined value that is assigned to a product before it reaches consumers.” The court concluded that because the Oak Park ordinance regulated “the types of energy or fuel that covered appliances may use in certain buildings, rather than establishing or affecting the appliances’ federally regulated energy-efficiency or energy-use performance standards,” the ordinance did not “concern” energy use and was not preempted. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on August 19. Clean Energy Choice Coalition, NFP v. Village of Oak Park, No. 1:25-cv-04353 (N.D. Ill. July 30, 2026)
On August 7, 2026, the federal district court for the District of Colorado dismissed with prejudice a challenge to standards passed by the Denver City Council in 2023 that restrict or ban use of certain natural gas appliances. As a threshold matter, the court found that the business groups that challenged the standards had standing. On the merits, however, the court rejected the groups’ argument that the standards were a regulation “concerning” a covered product’s “energy use” as defined by EPCA and were therefore preempted. The court agreed with the Second Circuit in Association of Contracting Plumbers of the City of New York v. City of New York that “energy use” in EPCA refers to “a standardized, fixed measure assigned to a product before it reaches consumers.” The district court found that Denver’s standards—“which only regulate appliances purchased by consumers and which do not impose requirements on manufacturers—do not regulate energy use as contemplated by the EPCA’s preemption provision.” The court further concluded that the EPCA preemption provision’s use of the word “concerning” did not extend the provision’s reach to the Denver standards. Restaurant Law Center v. City & County of Denver, No. 1:24-cv-01862 (D. Colo. Aug. 7, 2026)
California District Court Allowed Damages Claim to Proceed Against Delta in Climate Washing Case
The federal district court for the Central District of California allowed a consumer plaintiff to proceed with claims for damages under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act against Delta Air Lines Inc. (Delta) for alleged misrepresentations that Delta was a carbon-neutral airline. The court found that there was a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the plaintiff relied on Delta’s carbon-neutral representations and suffered an economic injury from buying Delta flights in 2021 and 2022. The court further found, however, that because the plaintiff did not have current plans to fly Delta in the future and because Delta had pivoted from carbon-neutral advertising to a “net zero by 2050” goal, the plaintiff allege the imminent threat of future harm necessary to establish standing for injunctive relief under the CLRA. The court noted that the plaintiff had not pleaded Delta’s “net zero by 2050” representations in the operative complaint and that it therefore was not necessary to address whether there was genuine issue of material fact regarding the plaintiff’s standing regarding these representations. The court also denied Delta’s motion to strike a “sham declaration” submitted by the plaintiff in support of a motion for class certification. The court found that the declaration and the plaintiff’s deposition testimony did not clearly contradict each other on various issues raised by Delta regarding the plaintiff’s statements about her awareness and understanding of and reliance on the carbon-neutral representations. The court also declined to strike the plaintiff’s errata changes to the deposition transcript. Berrin v. Delta Air Lines Inc., No. 2:23-cv-04150 (C.D. Cal. July 28, 2026)
Montana Supreme Court Declined to Reverse Trial Court’s Denial of Business Groups’ Intervention in Youth Plaintiffs’ Challenge to 2025 Laws
The Montana Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of supervisory control filed by the Montana, Kalispell, and Billings Chambers of Commerce (Chambers) in which the Chambers asked the Supreme Court to reverse the denial of their motion to intervene in youth plaintiffs’ lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of 2025 amendments to environmental laws. The youth plaintiffs assert that the amended statutes are at odds with the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Held v. State and violate their right to a clean and healthful environment. The Supreme Court found that the Chambers of Commerce did not demonstrate the criteria for the Supreme Court’s “extraordinary intervention prior to final judgment.” The court found that the Chambers’ support for the 2025 amendments during the legislative process did not give them “a direct, legally protectable interest as a matter of law” and further found that the factual record did not substantiate their claim that their protectable business interests would be impaired if they were not granted party status. The court noted, for instance, that the Chambers did not provide evidence of existing permits or contracts that were in jeopardy. The Chief Justice and another justice dissented. They would have granted the writ because in their view “the Chambers have made a minimally sufficient showing of their interests, supported by declarations,” related to the permitting process challenged by the youth plaintiffs. The dissent also stated that there should not be a presumption that the government defendants would adequately represent the economic interests of the Chambers and their members. Montana Chamber of Commerce v. Montana First Judicial District Court, No. OP 26-0407 (Mont. Aug. 18, 2026)
Michigan Supreme Court Vacated Approval for Enbridge’s Line 5 Replacement Project
Reversing an intermediate appellate court, the Michigan Supreme Court vacated the Michigan Public Service Commission’s (PSC’s) approval of an application by Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership (Enbridge) to replace and relocate a portion of its Line 5 fuel pipeline to a tunnel beneath the Straits of Mackinac. First, the Supreme Court held the Court of Appeals should have reviewed the PSC’s approval independently and de novo. Second, the Supreme Court concluded that the PSC failed to fully assess whether the Line 5 replacement project would “factually and proximately cause Line 5’s extended operation” and that the PSC erred by considering the environmental impacts of the entire scope of alternatives while only considering the harms of replacement project. In addition, the Supreme Court found that the PSC erred by failing to consider pollution, impairment, and destruction of public trust resources in its Michigan Environmental Protection Act analysis. The Supreme Court remanded to the PSC for further proceedings. One justice partially dissented. Although he agreed that the PSC must independently consider the public trust, he wrote that the majority should have afforded a “degree of deference” to the PSC’s decision, and he disagreed with the majority’s conclusion “that the continued operation of Line 5 is itself a relevant adverse environmental effect” of the replacement project. He also wrote that the consideration of alternatives should be limited to feasible alternatives to the replacement project, not Line 5 as a whole. In re Application of Enbridge Energy to Replace & Relocate Line 5, No. 168346 (Mich. July 31, 2026)
Michigan Court Said Law Professor’s Email Communications Related to Pro Bono Work on Climate Superfund Laws Were Not Subject to State Freedom of Information Act
The Michigan Court of Claims ruled that the Regents of the University of Michigan properly denied Michigan Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for a law professor’s communications with certain entities that the professor represented on a pro bono basis while employed by the University as a professor. The entities included organizations working on climate Superfund legislation. The requests also sought certain correspondence related to a memorandum prepared by the professor in March 2023 that the requestor also referred to as “American Petroleum Institute Opposition to a Climate Superfund Act.” The court concluded that the professor was not a “public body” subject to FOIA in her individual capacity. The court further concluded that the requested communications were not “public records” subject to FOIA because the record did not support the requestor’s position that the requested documents “were used in the performance of an official function.” The court wrote that the “fatal flaw” in the requestor’s argument was that it failed to connect the communications to the professor’s “required job duties or other authorized acts or operations of the University.” The court said any “indirect benefit” to the University from the professor’s pro bono work was not an official function and found no evidence that the pro bono work was ever used as part of an official University function. Government Accountability & Oversight v. Regents of the University of Michigan, No. 24-000060-MZ (Mich. Ct. Cl. Aug. 10, 2026)
Trade Associations Filed Constitutional Challenge to New York’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program
The trade associations American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and American Petroleum Institute filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Southern District of New York challenging the constitutionality of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC) Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. The complaint alleged that the reporting program “imposes a complex, unprecedented reporting regime on energy-industry participants across the country, whether or not they are located or do business in New York,” including requirements that out-of-state entities report “detailed, commercially sensitive, and often proprietary information about oil and gas supplies, products, sources, and markets.” The complaint also alleged that the program authorized DEC to conduct “warrantless inspections of facilities outside New York State” and imposed significant civil and criminal penalties for noncompliance. The trade groups asserted that program violates the dormant Commerce Clause and the constitutional prohibition on extraterritorial regulation, as well as the First Amendment (“by compelling overbroad and misleading disclosure (speech), regarding commercially sensitive information, on matters of public controversy without a compelling or substantial governmental interest”) and the Fourth Amendment (“by contriving consent to warrantless searches and inspections of out-of-state facilities and compelling production of private data without an opportunity for pre-compliance review”). In addition, they asserted that the program violates the Supremacy Clause because it is preempted by the Clean Air Act. American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers v. James, No. 1:26-cv-07203 (S.D.N.Y., filed Aug. 24, 2026)
Former Professor Asserted First Amendment Claims Against West Point for Allegedly Taking Actions Against Him Based on His Teaching About Human-Caused Climate Change
A former professor at the United States Military Academy (West Point) filed a lawsuit against West Point and three West Point officials alleging that the defendants violated his First Amendment rights by taking “adverse actions terminating his employment at West Point because he taught that humans influenced climate change and then protested the directive that this not be mentioned in his classes.” The plaintiff alleged that he taught climate science, among other subjects, as a civilian faculty member at West Point for more than 17 years. He alleged that in May 2025 his tenured position was eliminated. Although his superior told the plaintiff that the adverse action was not related to his expertise in climate science, the plaintiff alleged that the adverse action was taken “because he taught that current climate change had primarily human causes, something contrary to the ideology of the Commander in Chief and forbidden at West Point.” The plaintiff alleged that the defendants agreed that the plaintiff could remain at West Point as a term employee paid with his grant money but that in September 2025, the Geography Program Director “relayed a verbal order that professors could no longer teach about anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change and that professors must remove all mention of human causes of climate change from their courses.” The plaintiff alleged that he expressed his opposition to the order in a meeting but “[d]espite his profound misgivings,” continued to obey the order through the fall 2025 semester and removed a lesson highlighting climate change from a spring 2026 meteorology course. The plaintiff alleged that in May 2026 he was informed that the defendants had decided not to renew his contract. He alleged that the elimination of his tenured teaching position, the order forbidding the mentioning of anthropogenic climate change, and the premature termination of his appointment violated his First Amendment right to free speech. He requested an injunction enjoining the defendants from restricting academic freedom and “the capacity of a professor to fairly represent the state of scientific research and knowledge. He also asked the court to order the defendants to reinstate him as a tenured professor and to award him compensatory damages and attorney fees and costs. Kalkstein v. U.S. Military Academy, No. 7:26-cv-07197 (S.D.N.Y., filed Aug. 24, 2026)
Environmental Defense Fund Challenged Termination National Center for Atmospheric Research’s Climate Research Functions
In a lawsuit filed in the federal district court for the District of Colorado, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) sought to enjoin the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), OMB Director Russell Vought, and the official performing the duties of the NSF Director from terminating the climate research functions of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). EDF asserted that the elimination of NCAR’s climate functions was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Calling the Trump administration’s decision “the antithesis of the reasoned decision-making” that the APA requires, EDF alleged that the defendants failed to articulate a scientific, technical, budgetary, or other rationale for the decision; failed to consider the NSF’s statutory mission; and failed to consider scientific and public welfare consequences and the waste of significant federal investments in NCAR’s climate research labs, functions, and models. The complaint alleged that “political retaliation” against Colorado was “a driving force” for the decision. In addition, EDF alleged that the defendants’ actions were arbitrary and capricious because they failed to consider “the serious reliance interests of climate scientists and researchers” who depend on climate models and other resources from NCAR; failed to consider alternatives to termination of the climate research functions; and failed to follow their procedures for considering public feedback. Alternatively, EDF contended that the defendants’ actions were arbitrary and capricious because they were “substantively unreasonable.” EDF also asserted that the closure of the NCAR Mesa Lab in Colorado without compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) was unlawful and sought an injunction barring the closure, transfer of ownership, or other major undertaking related to Mesa Lab until the defendants fully comply with the NHPA. Environmental Defense Fund v. National Science Foundation, 1:26-cv-03824 (D. Colo., filed Aug. 20, 2026)
Lawsuit Asked Court to Compel Issuance of Final Listing Determination for Small Freshwater Mussel
Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Columbia asking the court to set a deadline for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to issue a final listing rule for the green floater, a small freshwater mussel species in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast United States. CBD alleged that FWS had violated the Endangered Species Act by failing to publish a final rule or extend the deadline for publishing a final rule within one year of its July 26, 2023 proposal to list the green floater as a threatened species. The complaint alleged that the green floater “requires urgent protection at the federal level, as it is currently threatened by habitat loss and fragmentation, degraded water quality and alterations in water flows, and faces compounded impacts from climate change, affecting its ability to survive and reproduce.” Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, No. 1:26-cv-02912 (D.D.C., filed Aug. 19, 2026)
Employee Brought Religious Discrimination Claims Against Thermo Fisher Scientific for Refusing to Offer Fossil-Fuel-Free 401(k) Investment Option
A statistical science director at Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. (Thermo Fisher) who described himself as a “devout Christian” filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Western District of New York alleging that Thermo Fisher discriminated against him on the basis of his religion by failing to offer a fossil-fuel-free investment option in the company’s 401(k) plan menu. The plaintiff alleged that he “believes that investing his retirement money in ecologically and socially destructive fossil fuel companies violates his religious beliefs, including his belief that it is deeply immoral to personally profit from and hold an ownership stake in the fossil fuel companies that are contributing to the climate crisis.” The complaint alleged that he “makes an earnest effort to live his life in accordance with his beliefs” and described his faith and commitment to environmental stewardship as “intertwined.” The complaint alleged that the plaintiff submitted an initial request for a religious accommodation—addition of a fossil-fuel-free 401(k) investment option—to the company in October 2024, and that the company initially responded that the request did not meet the criteria for a religious accommodation and later stopped responding to the plaintiff’s correspondence. The plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in December 2025, and EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue in July 2026. The complaint asserted two causes of action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for religious discrimination and for religious discrimination based on failure to accommodate. The complaint also asserted that Thermo Fisher violated New York State Human Rights Law. The plaintiff asked the court to issue an injunction requiring Thermo Fisher to provide a fossil-fuel-free 401(k) investment option and to engage in “a good faith interactive process” with the plaintiff regarding future accommodations. The plaintiff also requested compensatory damages and attorney fees and costs. Hartley v. Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., No. 1:26-cv-01612 (W.D.N.Y., filed Aug. 4, 2026)
Australia: Environmental group challenges federal agency’s decision to approve the extended operation of a large gas processing facility
On October 10, 2025, the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), represented by Environmental Justice Australia, brought judicial review proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia challenging the Australian Environment Minister’s decision to approve an application to extend the operation of a large gas processing facility until 2070 (the North West Shelf Project Extension). The Minister approved the project following an environmental impact assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (Cth) 1999 (EPBC Act). The EPBC Act is Australia’s primary federal environmental legislation.
The ACF proceedings were heard alongside a separate challenge brought by Friends of Australian Rock Art Inc (FARA). While both proceedings challenge the same approval decision, they rely on different legal arguments. Both proceedings concerned government decision making regarding fossil fuel projects and the proper interpretation of key provisions in the environmental impact assessment process under Australia’s federal environmental laws. Broadly, ACF and FARA argue that the Minister made legal errors when approving the project and that the approval decision should be set aside.
ACF also challenged the Minister’s refusal of a reconsideration request which called on the Minister to consider the climate impacts of the project. The project is expected to result in approximately 4 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions in its lifetime. Specifically, ACF challenged the Minister’s finding that the project could not properly be considered to be a substantial cause of climate harms on protected matters.
The proceedings also concerned the project’s impact upon the Dampier Archipelago National Heritage Place, or Murujuga, which is thought to contain more than 1 million rock engravings, and represents one of the most dense and diverse collections of rock engravings in the world. The Murujuga Cultural Landscape was also added to the World Heritage List in 2025. The UN Special Rapporteur on the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment was granted leave to appear as amicus curiae in these proceedings. The hearing was held on July 21 to 24, 2026. Judgment has been reserved, and the online file can be accessed here. Australian Conservation Foundation Inc v Minister for the Environment and Water; Friends of Australian Rock Art Inc v Minister for the Environment and Water (Australia, Federal Court of Australia)
Brazil: Parties appeal Federal Court’s orders to suspend operating licenses of power plants and mines until new climate impact assessments are made
On July 6, 2023, Instituto Preservar, Associação Gaúcha de Proteção ao Ambiente Natural (AGAPAN), and Núcleo Amigos da Terra Brasil filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) against the Federal Union, Federal Environment Agency (IBAMA), National Electric Power Agency (ANEEL), Companhia de Geração e Transmissão de Energia Elétrica do Sul do Brasil Eletrobras CGT Eletrosul (SE & UTE Cantiota III), the State of Rio Grande do Sul, Rio Grande do Sul environmental agency (FEPAM), and Companhia Riograndense de Mineração (CRM). The Plaintiffs argued that the Defendants, by action or omission, failed to comply with the legal guidelines and did not meet the deadlines and targets set out in the National Policy on Climate Change (PNMC), the Paris Agreement and the Rio Grande do Sul ‘s Policy on Climate Change (PGMC). The Plaintiffs sought to order the Defendants to adopt effective measures to comply with the guidelines, deadlines and targets set out in federal and Rio Grande do Sul’s climate laws. The Plaintiffs also sought monetary compensation for actual and moral damages.
On August 22, 2025, the Rio Grande do Sul Federal Court partially granted the requests. It scheduled hearings to monitor the measures determined in the judgment and set fines in case of non-compliance. Following the decision, Ambar Sul Energia SA, the state of Rio Grande do Sul, and FEPAM requested the Court to grant a stay of execution of the appeal. The TRF4, granting the request, suspended all orders for immediate or time-limited compliance with the judgment or the motions for clarification, as well as for compliance through inspection hearings and compliance with court orders and auxiliary judicial expertise.
The Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources filed an appeal seeking to overturn the ruling, specifically regarding the deadlines established for fulfilling the obligations imposed upon it. The Instituto Preservar, AGAPAN, and Núcleo Amigos da Terra Brasil also filed an appeal requesting the reversal of the sentence so that it be declared that, during the period of validity of the PNMC and the PGMC, the Union and the state of Rio Grande do Sul, through action or omission, failed to comply with legal guidelines and did not meet the deadlines and targets foreseen in the respective policies and in the Paris Agreement, since they did not give effect to the aforementioned climate standards and did not take measures to reduce GHG emissions from coal-fired thermal power plants in the state of Rio Grande do Sul.
J&F; SA, the current owner of UTE Candiota III and procedural successor to Âmbar Sul Energia SA, filed an appeal requesting that the claims made in the Public Civil Action be dismissed in their entirety and that all determinations imposed by the judgment be overturned. CRM appealed the ruling, seeking recognition of the regularity and compliance of the Candiota Mine’s operations with the environmental licenses and administrative instruments in force during each period of their issuance and renewal, as well as the impossibility of ordering the suspension of the operating licenses. Eletrobras CGT Eletrosul filed an appeal seeking to have the judgment reformed to recognize the absence of the authorizing requirements (danger of damage and risk of loss of the useful result of the process) for granting urgent relief, expressly stated in a judgment altered after analysis of Declaratory Appeals.
The State of Rio Grande do Sul and FEPAM (State Foundation for Environmental Protection) filed an appeal requesting the complete reversal of the judgment. Finally, the Federal Union filed an appeal requesting the reversal of the judgment as far as it is concerned. It argued that the elaboration of a Just Energy Transition Plan for the coal sector in Rio Grande do Sul requires coordination between various federal and state bodies and social actors, making the deadline set by the court unfeasible. Instituto Preservar, AGAPAN and Núcleo Amigos da Terra vs. Federal Union and others (Brazil, Rio Grande do Sul Federal Court)
Brazil: Federal Court recognizes the relationship between deforestation and climate change, ordering parties to compensate for their illegal deforestation
In mid-2021, the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office (MPF) filed 22 Civil Public Actions against individuals for deforesting areas in Boca do Acre, Amazonas, alleging that the Defendants’ occupation of the lands were illegal. MPF alleged that the land was part of an Agro-Extractivist Settlement Project (PAE), owned and managed by the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) and occupied by traditional extractivist communities. The lawsuit was based, among other things, on Brazilian environmental law concerning the constitutional protection of the environment, the accusation of deforestation, propter rem civil liability for environmental damage, including climate damage, and collective moral damages. It also relied on the unauthorized emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) caused by the illegal deforestation of the area.
A judgment was issued recognizing the relationship between deforestation and climate change, presenting extensive arguments on climate change and civil liability for climate damage, acknowledging said damage in the case. The requests were partially granted, condemning the defendant: a) to fulfill the obligation to restore the degraded area according to the Degraded Area Recovery Plan (PRAD); b) to the obligation not to act, consisting of a prohibition on the defendant’s use of the area, in order to allow natural regeneration; c) to pay compensation for material damages related to interim and residual environmental damages, the value of which will be subject to settlement of judgment; d) to pay compensation for climate damages caused by deforestation, in the amount of R$ 1,996,792.13, using as a basis for calculating the amount of carbon emitted the Technical Note prepared by the Amazon Research Institute (IPAM) and, for pricing purposes, the value of 5 dollars per ton, according to the Amazon Fund; e) to the payment of compensation for collective moral damages, in the amount of 5% of the total material damages determined in the settlement of the judgment. Finally, it declared the respective CAR null and void and allocated all the resources obtained to the Fund for Diffuse Rights. The judgment became final and the case entered the enforcement phase. Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office v. José Barbosa de Araújo (Deforestation and climate damage in the PAE Antimary) (Brazil, Amazonas Federal Court); Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office v. Istefania Ferreira da Silva (Deforestation and climate damage in the PAE Antimary) (Brazil, Amazonas Federal Court); Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office v. Josafá de Moura Cunha (Deforestation and climate damage in the PAE Antimary) (Brazil, Amazonas Federal Court); Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office v. Paulo de Lima Paulo (Deforestation and climate damage in the PAE Antimary) (Brazil, Amazonas Federal Court)
Brazil: Federal Court recognized the negative climate impact of deforestation
This case is among the 22 Civil Public Actions the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office (MPF) filed against individuals for deforesting areas in Boca do Acre, Amazonas. Unlike the other cases, however, the Defendant Clair Cunha da Silva argued that she had never held possession or ownership of the area, as she had been living in another state for more than 50 years. She contended that the responsibility for preserving, protecting, monitoring, and preventing invasions and exploitation of the area lies with public officials. She requested that the case be dismissed in its entirety.
As a result, a judgment was issued that only partially granted the Plaintiff’s requests. The court recognized the occurrence of environmental damage resulting from the unauthorized removal of vegetation, highlighting the importance of the Amazon for the stability of the climate system, the maintenance of the hydrological cycle, the preservation of biodiversity, and the fulfillment of climate commitments. In this context, the judgment recognized that the deforestation of the area resulted in the estimated emission equivalent to 215,909.79 tons of CO₂, directly contributing to the worsening of the climate crisis. The judgment also emphasized that the deforestation is part of a broader context of invasions, land grabbing, and the distortion of the extractive purpose of the Antimary PAE, to the detriment of traditional communities that depend on the standing forest for their subsistence. Therefore, the decision: (i) ordered the Defendant to fully restore the degraded area (370.97 hectares), by submitting a Degraded Area Recovery Plan (PRAD) to IBAMA; (ii) imposed a non-action obligation, consisting of a prohibition on the use of the area, authorizing environmental agencies to seize, remove or destroy assets that impede its natural regeneration; (iii) ordered the Defendant to pay compensation for material damages, as well as for intermediate, residual and climate damages; (iv) ordered the Defendant to pay compensation for collective moral damages, set at 5% of the material damages ascertained. Finally, the court declared the respective CAR null and void and allocated all the resources obtained to the Fund for Diffuse Rights. Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office v. Clair Cunha da Silva (Deforestation and climate damage in the PAE Antimary) (Brazil, Amazonas Federal Court)
Brazil: State’s interlocutory appeal against preliminary injunction was denied, continuing to suspend port and waterway projects until proper climate study
In July 2024, the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office (MPF) filed a public civil action against the state of Pará and the municipality of Santarém, seeking the mandatory inclusion of environmental, climate, indigenous, and quilombola impact studies in the licensing process for port and waterway projects in the region of the municipality of Santarém/PA. MPF alleged that the lack of impact studies has caused serious environmental and social damage, such as deforestation, water pollution, loss of biodiversity, destruction of ecosystems and a threat to the livelihoods of traditional communities, including indigenous peoples, quilombolas, artisanal fishermen, riverine communities and extractive communities. It requested that the State of Pará and the Municipality of Santarém be ordered to adapt their environmental licensing procedures for port and waterway works in Santarém/PA, with a mandatory prior environmental impact study (EIA/RIMA), a study of quilombola (ECG) and indigenous (ECI) components, a climate impact study and free, prior and informed consultation of the traditional peoples and communities potentially impacted.
In a preliminary ruling, the request for injunctive relief was granted, based on the principles of prevention and precaution, the prohibition of socio-environmental regress, and the fundamental right to an ecologically balanced environment (Art. 225, Federal Constitution). It ordered the suspension of licensing procedures that do not include an Environmental Impact Assessment and Report (EIA/RIMA) containing analyses of Indigenous and Quilombola components and climate impacts.
The State of Pará filed an interlocutory appeal (AI) against the preliminary injunction, but the appeal was denied. The judgment on the AI stated that the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) has a consolidated understanding that there is no acquired right to pollute or degrade, which authorizes the imposition of new requirements even for licensing processes in advanced stages, aiming to avoid irreversible damage. The decision stated that the obligation for the assessment of the climate variable stems directly from the Federal Constitution and the National Policy on Climate Change. It highlighted that the Supreme Federal Court (STF), in the judgment of ADPF 708 (Climate Fund), recognized the constitutional duty to mitigate climate change and therefore the licensing of large port structures in the Amazon, a sensitive biome and climate regulator, must require studies of greenhouse gas emissions and cumulative impacts.
The court also affirmed in its judgment on the AI that Free, Prior and Informed Consultation is a right of traditional communities as required by ILO Convention 169 and must be carried out by the State whenever there is a possibility of impacts on traditional ways of life. It further reaffirmed that the Judiciary must guarantee the effectiveness of environmental policy and prevent ecological regression, as per the thesis of ADPF 760, and that the control of omissions in environmental administrative acts does not violate the limits of the separation of powers, since it is a control of legality and constitutionality. Regarding the conflict between economic interests and the protection of the environment and the rights of traditional peoples and communities, the decision affirmed that the fundamental intergenerational right must prevail. Therefore, it fully upheld the decision suspending licensing without the necessary climate studies and consultations with the affected populations. Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office v. State of Pará and Municipality of Santarém (Tapajós – Xingu Logistics Corridor) (Brazil, Pará State Court)
Brazil: MPF files an appeal against the Federal Court’s decision that thorough environmental assessment is unnecessary, absent foreseeable direct impacts
In September 2025, the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office (MPF) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) against the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) and Petróleo Brasileiro SA (Petrobras), concerning the granting of authorization for Pre-Operational Assessment (APO), a stage prior to the license for drilling offshore oil wells, in Block FZA-M-59, located in the Foz do Amazonas Basin. MPF sought to annul the authorization, Decision Order No. 33/2025/Gabin (the “DO”), until the licensing irregularities are remedied. According to MPF, the DO contradicted environmental licensing regulations, international obligations, and a technical opinion from the agency itself, which recommended the denial of the license due to serious flaws in the Oiled Fauna Protection and Care Plan (PPAF). MPF also relied on the absence of an Environmental Assessment of the Sedimentary Area (AAAS), the failure to conduct prior, free, and informed consultations with the affected indigenous, quilombola, traditional fishing, and riverside communities, and the failure to consider some of these communities in the environmental studies, despite the prediction of various impacts on them, in violation of ILO Convention No. 169 and the Federal Constitution.
In December 2025, a judgment was issued dismissing the claims. The court held that the absence of an AAAS does not impact the preparation of the environmental license, holding that IBAMA’s decision in the environmental licensing was valid. It further held that there is no direct environmental impact on indigenous, quilombola, and artisanal fishing communities, given that the project is located 179 km off the coast of Amapá, making it non-obligatory to prepare studies on indigenous and quilombola components. The court concluded that the project could bring economic development, opportunities, and expansion of social infrastructure to these communities, and that the precautionary principle cannot be taken as an absolute principle so as to frustrate the legitimate expectation regarding the use of natural resources, with the generation of wealth and development.
MPF filed an appeal against the ruling, arguing, in summary, that the process constitutes a true climate dispute and that the environmental licensing of drilling in Block FZA-M-59 presents serious flaws capable of compromising environmental and climate protection. MPF also continues to argue that the absence of AAAS, the insufficiency of studies on sensitive ecosystems, especially the Amazon Reef System, the lack of adequate assessment of impacts on indigenous peoples, quilombola communities, riverside dwellers, and artisanal fishermen, as well as the inadequate incorporation of the climate component in the licensing process, prevent the assessment of the environmental viability of the project. It further argues that the activity could generate a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions, in violation of the National Policy on Climate Change and international commitments undertaken by Brazil, such as the Paris Agreement. The appeal also highlights the occurrence of a drilling fluid leak after the ruling was issued as a supervening event that would demonstrate flaws in the emergency plans and reinforce the environmental risks associated with the project.
In light of this, upon appeal, the MPF requested the suspension of Operating License No. 1684/2025, arguing that environmental damage has already occurred and that the emergency plans have proven insufficient to guarantee the safety of the activity. It also requests recognition of the claim as a climate dispute. On the merits, it pleaded for: (i) the annulment of Operating License No. 1684/2025 due to alleged irregularities in the environmental licensing process; (ii) recognition of the incompatibility of the project with international environmental and climate commitments undertaken by Brazil, including the Paris Agreement; and (iii) the carrying out of new environmental studies and the revision of the project’s area of influence, conditioning the continuation of oil exploration on the holding of prior, free and informed consultations with potentially affected indigenous peoples and traditional communities.
The Federal Public Defender’s Office (DPU), acting as custos vulnerabilis, filed an appeal against the judgment, arguing that the appealed decision disregarded the fundamental rights of indigenous, quilombola, riverside, and artisanal fishing communities potentially affected by the project, as well as the environmental and climatic risks associated with oil exploration in the Amazon River estuary. DPU argues that the licensing is illegal due to the absence of AAAS, the lack of Indigenous and Quilombola Component Studies, and the absence of prior, free, and informed consultations with traditional communities. It further argues that the case should be recognized as a true climate dispute, since the impacts resulting from oil exploration in a region of high ecological sensitivity fall disproportionately on vulnerable populations, in violation of the principles of climate justice, environmental precaution, and the international obligations assumed by Brazil. It argues that authorizing the activity without adopting the necessary environmental safeguards compromises the intergenerational protection of the environment and ignores the potential climatic and ecosystemic impacts of fossil fuel exploration in a strategic area of the Amazon. Ministério Público Federal vs. IBAMA e Petrobras (Suspension of the licence for the Pre-Operational Assessment in the Amazon River mouth area) (Brazil, Amapá Federal Court)
Brazil: Court denies preliminary suspension of drilling activity absent manifest illegality in licensing process
On October 22, 2025, a number of NGOs filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) with a request for preliminary injunction against IBAMA, Petrobras, and the Federal Government. The Plaintiffs seek to suspend and subsequently annul the Operating License (LO) 1,684/2025 for the Offshore Drilling Activity in Block FZA-M-59, located at the mouth of the Amazon River. The Plaintiffs point to the technical weaknesses and irreparable flaws in the environmental licensing process. It argues for the need to assess climate impacts and the direct and indirect impacts of the activity, with the provision of complete data on direct and indirect greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from current and already contracted oil production in the country, and verification of the compatibility between Brazilian climate emission reduction targets and the carrying capacity of the climate system for the project’s emissions. It is pointed out that Block FZA-M-59 is located in an area of notorious environmental sensitivity and vulnerability to oil spills, near mangroves and coastal dunes and the Great Amazon Reef System, ecosystems whose preservation is fundamental to mitigating the current climate emergency scenario. In addition, an Environmental Assessment of the Sedimentary Area (AAAS) of the region where the block is located has never been carried out to evaluate the socio-environmental attributes of the region and define its suitability for oil exploration. The plaintiffs also emphasize that the necessary Indigenous and Quilombola Component Studies were not carried out, nor was there free, prior and informed consultation with the Indigenous peoples, Quilombola and traditional communities affected by the project.
The plaintiffs requested, as a preliminary injunction, the suspension of the effects of Operating License 1.684/2025 to prevent and/or halt any and all drilling activity in Block FZA-M-59. On the merits, they requested: (i) the annulment of the LO due to the flaws and technical deficiencies of the EIA-RIMA and the environmental licensing process; (ii) that IBAMA refrain from issuing environmental licenses for oil projects in the sedimentary basin of the Amazon River mouth and in other basins of the Equatorial Margin without first attesting to the complete environmental viability of the project (including considering direct and indirect climate damage, as well as the relationship of the project with Brazilian climate goals) and without having carried out free, prior, informed and good-faith consultation with the affected populations and traditional communities.
In a decision regarding the request for urgent relief, the Court denied the suspension of Operating License 1,684/2025 and drilling activities in Block FZA-M-59. The decision acknowledged that the plaintiffs raised controversies related to the project’s climate impacts, the sufficiency of environmental studies, and the need for prior consultation with traditional peoples and communities, but understood that such issues require in-depth analysis of the merits. The magistrate highlighted that the licensing was preceded by extensive technical evaluation by IBAMA, including the approval of the Pre-Operational Assessment (APO) and the Individual Emergency Plan (PEI), applying the principle of deference to the institutional capacities of specialized environmental agencies. Given the absence of manifest illegality and the requirements for granting the measure, the request for urgent relief was denied. Observatório do Clima e outros vs. IBAMA, Petrobras e União Federal (Revocation of the Operating License for drilling at the mouth of the Amazon River) (Brazil, Pará Federal Court)
Brazil: State files on an Extraordinary Appeal with the Supreme Federal Court, against a judgment declaring a state climate governance law unconstitutional
In December 2024, the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the State of Rondônia filed a state Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI), seeking a declaration of unconstitutionality of Articles 1 and 2 of State Law 5.868/2024, which establishes the State Policy on Climate Governance and Environmental Services (PGSA) and the State System for Climate Governance and Environmental Services (SGSA). The plaintiff alleged that the new law distorts the originally established model of climate governance by altering guidelines, implementation, and governance mechanisms, as well as management rules of the State Fund for Climate Governance and Environmental Services (FUNCLIMA). It is argued that the law is formally unconstitutional, as the state regulation exceeds the concurrent legislative competence in environmental matters, going beyond the limits of the supplementary legislative competence of the states. It is also claimed that the law is incompatible with Federal Law 11.284/2006 (Public Forest Management) and Federal Law 13.123/2015 (Legal Framework for Biodiversity), as it does not provide essential safeguards for local communities and discourages their participation in conservation and sustainable development processes.
The Court, by majority vote, ruled in favor of the action to declare the unconstitutionality of Articles 1 and 2 of State Law 5.868/2024. Regarding formal unconstitutionality, the winning vote highlighted that the centralization of powers in SEDAM, which were previously collegial and participatory, contradicted general rules of the Federal Union (Federal Law 12.187/2009 - PNMC, Federal Law 11.284/2006 - Public Forest Management - and Federal Law 13.123/2015 - Biodiversity Framework) and transformed the Management Council into a merely formal body. It is understood that the concentration of the management of the Climate Fund in the exclusive sphere of the Executive Branch compromises the principles of publicity, morality, and administrative efficiency and that the exclusion of traditional communities and voluntary projects from the distribution of benefits violates the Federal Constitution and international commitments, such as ILO Convention 169 and the Escazú Agreement. Regarding material unconstitutionality, the vote pointed to the existence of a violation of the principle of prohibition of socio-environmental regression, since the new wording of the rule weakened participatory governance and reduced already consolidated guarantees.
The State of Rondônia filed an Extraordinary Appeal with the Supreme Federal Court (STF). It argued that the changes introduced by State Law 5.868/2024 to the State Policy on Climate Governance and Environmental Services did not eliminate social participation or constitute environmental regression, but rather sought to improve the efficiency of the management of the State Fund for Climate Governance and Environmental Services (FUNCLIMA) in light of the alleged paralysis of the previous model. It maintained the State’s concurrent legislative competence to regulate the matter, the compatibility of the law with the National Policy on Climate Change (PNMC), and the constitutionality of the provisions related to climate governance, jurisdictional REDD+, and the management of resources from carbon credits. It requested the reversal of the judgment that declared the challenged provisions unconstitutional. State ADI 0820695-16.2024.8.22.0000 (Climate Governance in Rondônia) (Brazil, Rondônia State Court)
Brazil: Aviation company was penalized for its environmental advertising that lacked due transparency
In November 2025, the Instituto Brasileiro de Defesa do Consumidor (IDEC) filed a Public Civil Action (ACP) against GOL Linhas Aéreas S.A., concerning the implementation of environmental programs linked to the sale of airline tickets, notably the “Meu Voo Compensa” initiative. The program, developed in partnership with the company MOSS, aimed at acquiring carbon credits. It was argued that, at the time of ticket purchase, consumers were encouraged to pay an additional amount for environmental compensation without clear, accessible, and scientific proof of the real effectiveness of the announced measures. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant also promoted campaigns such as “Rotas 100% Carbono Neutro” and the so-called “Avião Verde da GOL”, associating visual elements and advertising narratives with a supposed environmental and climate commitment, without presenting sufficient technical data demonstrating a concrete impact on the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
The Court recognized the practices as misleading environmental advertising (greenwashing), understanding that the company did not provide clear, sufficient, and verifiable information about the programs in question, especially regarding the carbon offsetting methodology, traceability of the credits used, and the effectiveness of the advertised environmental benefits. It understood that the use of claims of “carbon offsetting” and “neutralization” without due transparency violated the duty to inform stipulated in the Consumer Protection Code and misled the consumer. Thus, it ruled entirely in favor of the requests made by IDEC, ordering GOL to cease new environmental communications without auditable technical proof, to conduct counter-advertising, to remove elements related to the “GOL Green Plane,” and to pay R$ 5 million in collective moral damages. Instituto Brasileiro de Defesa do Consumidor (IDEC) vs. Gol Linhas Aéreas S/A (Greenwashing in aviation) (Brazil, Sao Paulo State Court)
Canada: Property owners of Dollard-des-Ormeaux, Montreal, and Pierrefonds-Roxboro sue their municipalities for failing to take precautions against foreseeable extreme climate events
On June 20, 2026, the Montreal region experienced an extreme rainfall event that reportedly brought between 100 and 170 mm of rain within a few hours. According to estimates, between 1,000 and 1,500 households across Montreal’s West Island were affected by the event.
Following the rainfall, class action lawsuits were proposed. One application proposed a class consisting of all owners and lessees of movable or immovable property in Dollard-des-Ormeaux that was damaged by the flooding. Another proposed a class consisting of all persons whose movable or immovable property in the Borough of Pierrefonds-Roxboro was damaged by the flood.
According to the Plaintiffs, the municipalities caused or exacerbated the flooding by failing to adequately prepare for, respond to, and mitigate foreseeable extreme rainfall events. They allege that the defendants failed to take precautionary measures before the storm, including increasing available stormwater storage capacity; installing or expanding adaptation infrastructure such as retention ponds, retention facilities, catch basins, and sponge parks designed to absorb, detain, and gradually release rainwater; implementing adequate flood-response measures during the event, including water diversion, pumping, and blockage removal; and upgrading and maintaining aging sewer and drainage systems.
The applications further allege that these failures occurred despite the defendants’ knowledge that climate change has increased the intensity and concentration of rainfall events. According to the claim, the defendants knew that their areas were vulnerable to flood risk because of its topography and had been aware that existing sewer and drainage infrastructure could not adequately withstand major rainfall events following the severe flooding associated with the remnants of Hurricane Debby on August 9, 2024. The plaintiff contends that the municipalities therefore had notice of foreseeable climate-related flood risks and failed to undertake appropriate adaptation measures.
The plaintiffs allege that class members suffered common injuries resulting from the flooding, including damage to residential property and personal belongings, reduced property values, increased insurance costs or loss of insurance coverage, temporary relocation and other out-of-pocket expenses, and physical and mental harms associated with flood-related contamination. The action seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages under the Quebec Charter, and injunctive relief requiring the defendants to undertake infrastructure improvements and other measures intended to prevent future flooding. Wolofsky v. City of Dollard-des-Ormeaux and the City of Montreal (Canada, Quebec Superior Court); Beaudry v. City of Montreal (Pierrefonds-Roxboro Borough) and City of Montreal (Canada, Quebec Superior Court)
Germany: Environmental group challenges state government to comply with its statutory climate obligations
German Environmental Action (Deutsche Umwelthilfe, DUH) filed a climate action against the Bremen Senate in the Higher Administrative Court of Bremen (Oberverwaltungsgericht der Freien Hansestadt Bremen), seeking to compel the state government to comply with its statutory climate-planning obligations.
Under the Bremen Climate Protection and Energy Act (Bremisches Klimaschutz- und Energiegesetz), Bremen must reduce its CO₂ emissions by at least 60% by 2030 compared with 1990 levels. Emissions had fallen by only 34.8% by 2024, while a study commissioned by the Bremen government projects a reduction of only 40–45% by 2030, even if all currently planned measures are implemented.
The action challenges the Senate’s alleged failure to comply with the Act’s mandatory corrective-action procedure. Following publication of the preliminary emissions balance in March 2026, the Senate was required to report to the Bremen Parliament by May 31, 2026 on whether the 2030 target was likely to be achieved. It was then required, by July 31, 2026, to submit a draft of additional climate measures if the target was at risk. According to DUH, neither step was taken.
DUH seeks an effective climate action plan setting out concrete, effective, and quantified additional measures capable of enabling Bremen to meet its statutory 2030 target. DUH v. Bremen Senate (Germany, Higher Administrative Court of Bremen)
Germany: Court holds climate activists financially responsible for blocking operations at Hamburg Airport
On July 13, 2023, ten climate activists affiliated with Last Generation blocked operations at Hamburg Airport for approximately four hours during the summer holiday period. The action disrupted the operations of Lufthansa Group airlines, reportedly affecting approximately 8,500 passengers and resulting in 57 canceled flights. Lufthansa brought a civil damages claim against the activists.
On November 20, 2025, the Regional Court of Hamburg (Landgericht Hamburg) held the defendants jointly and severally liable for more than €403,000 in damages. The award comprised approximately €207,000 in passenger compensation, €190,000 in lost profits, and approximately €5,000 in additional fuel and delay-related costs. The court also awarded approximately €6,800 in pre-litigation attorneys’ fees, together with interest and costs.
The court based liability primarily on an unlawful interference with the right to an established and operating business (Recht am eingerichteten und ausgeübten Gewerbebetrieb), an “other right” protected under Section 823(1) of the German Civil Code (BGB). The court found that the airport blockade specifically interfered with the organization and operation of the airlines’ businesses. In determining unlawfulness, the court conducted a balancing of interests, recognizing that the activists’ objective—climate protection—was legitimate and, according to the court, essential for the continued existence of human society in its present form. Nevertheless, it concluded that the chosen means were disproportionate because the blockade excessively interfered with the airlines’ lawful business operations and deliberately crossed criminal-law boundaries.
The court further issued an injunction prohibiting the defendants from engaging in further disruptions of flight operations, subject to statutory enforcement measures. The judgment is not yet final. The total amount in dispute was set at €1.1 million, with the damages claim itself valued at €700,000. Compensation claims by climate activists — Hamburg Airport (Germany, Higher Administrative Court Hamburg)
Germany: Case brought in Germany’s highest administrative court against a major LNG infrastructure project was dismissed on admissibility grounds
In April 2024, applications were brought before the Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht), seeking suspension of the permit for the construction and operation of the Mukran LNG terminal on the island of Rügen. The applicants raised climate-related arguments, challenging the compatibility of the project with Germany’s climate commitments and drawing attention to the tension between continued fossil-fuel infrastructure and climate protection. The German authorities had relied, inter alia, on national energy security considerations in connection with the decision to permit the project without a full environmental impact assessment.
The Federal Administrative Court dismissed the applications on admissibility grounds and therefore did not substantively determine the applicants’ climate-related arguments. The proceedings nevertheless concerned the legal tension between fossil-fuel infrastructure, energy security, environmental protection, and Germany’s climate obligations. The case is significant as litigation concerning a major LNG infrastructure project before Germany’s highest administrative court. Granting of preliminary legal protection against the Mukran (Rügen) LNG terminal (Germany, Federal Administrative Court)
Germany: Germany’s highest administrative court holds that future LNG demand is irrelevant in deciding the legality of LNG-based operation permits
The Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht) dismissed an environmental organization’s challenge to the permit for the construction and operation of the Stade onshore LNG terminal, including two storage tanks. The permit, issued on November 1, 2023, authorizes LNG-based operations until December 31, 2043.
The Claimant argued, inter alia, that there was no sufficient energy-policy need for continued LNG operation until 2043 and that the duration of the permit was incompatible with Germany’s constitutional climate-protection obligation and the Federal Climate Protection Act (Bundes-Klimaschutzgesetz). It also challenged the terminal’s ability to be converted to liquefied ammonia, its safety, and compliance with nature-conservation law.
The court rejected the claim in its entirety. It held that the permitting authority could not impose an earlier end date than December 31, 2043, the date specified in the LNG Acceleration Act (LNG-Beschleunigungsgesetz). The constitutional obligation to protect the climate and the Federal Climate Protection Act did not require a shorter operating period. The court further held that the question of whether there would be sufficient demand for LNG by the end of the authorization period was irrelevant to the legality of the permit. The operator had sufficiently demonstrated that the facility could subsequently be converted for liquefied ammonia (“Green Gas Ready”) operation. The court also found no decisive safety or nature-conservation concerns. Environmental permit for Stade LNG terminal (Hanseatic Energy Hub) (Germany, Federal Administrative Court)
Germany: Court holds parent company responsible for its subsidiary’s greenwashing advertisement
An action was brought by the German Environmental Action (Deutsche Umwelthilfe, DUH) against OBI Home and Garden GmbH, concerning the advertising of wall paint as “climate neutral.” OBI had marketed the product as “klimaneutral” on its website without providing sufficient information to consumers about how the claimed climate neutrality was achieved.
The Regional Court of Cologne (Landgericht Köln) upheld the claim. The court found the advertisement misleading and therefore prohibited OBI from continuing to advertise the wall paint as “climate neutral.” OBI argued that it was not responsible for the claim, because another company within the OBI group had made the relevant representation. The court rejected this argument and held OBI responsible. The judgment is not yet final. DUH v. Obi (Climate-neutral wall paint)(Germany, Regional Court of Cologne)
Germany: Regional court holds that unqualified “climate neutral” claim is misleading
German Environmental Action (Deutsche Umwelthilfe, DUH) brought an action against ZG Raiffeisen Energie GmbH concerning the advertising of heating oil as “climate neutral.” The Regional Court of Karlsruhe (Landgericht Karlsruhe) upheld the action and prohibited the company from continuing to advertise its heating oil in this manner.
The court found that ZG Raiffeisen had provided insufficient and contradictory information concerning the emissions covered by its claimed compensation measures. In particular, the company failed to adequately disclose which emissions were compensated in qualitative, quantitative, and temporal terms. The court noted that the compensation did not cover emissions associated with crude-oil extraction, including methane emissions, or the transportation of crude oil from extraction sites to the refinery. The judgment was issued in proceedings concerning unfair commercial practices and environmental advertising. DUH v. ZG Raiffeisen (Advertising with supposedly climate-neutral heating oil) (Germany, Regional Court of Karlsruhe)
Germany: Regional court finds climate neutrality advertisement misleading for failing to consider all relevant emission sources
German Environmental Action (Deutsche Umwelthilfe, DUH) brought an action against German Hospitality Management GmbH, the operator of a Best Western hotel in Mannheim, for advertisement of the “Sure Hotel by Best Western Mannheim City” that described hotel stays as “climate neutral” or “CO₂ neutral.”
The Regional Court of Berlin (Landgericht Berlin) upheld the action and prohibited the company from making such claims without providing further explanation of how the claimed climate neutrality was achieved. The company’s calculation considered emissions from electricity and gas consumption but did not adequately account for other relevant emissions sources, including waste disposal and laundry services. The court therefore found the environmental advertising misleading. DUH v. Best Western (Advertising for climate-neutral hotel stays) (Germany, Regional Court of Berlin)
Germany: Federal Administrative Court limits the scope of judicial review in determining the existence of gas-supply crisis
The Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht) upheld the planning approval for an LNG connection pipeline linking an offshore LNG facility in the Baltic Sea to Germany’s existing gas transmission network. The case concerned, in particular, the compatibility of the statutory framework for accelerated LNG infrastructure development with EU law, and the legal justification for the project on the basis of national gas supply security.
The court followed its earlier judgment of June 22, 2023 (Case No. 7 A 9.22), holding that Section 4 of the LNG Acceleration Act (LNGG) is compatible with EU law, including as applied to the Baltic Sea connection pipeline. The court further held that the legislature’s determination — that the rapid integration of LNG into the existing transmission network is particularly urgent for Germany’s secure national energy supply — is binding on the courts to a significant extent. This determination limits the scope of judicial review of whether an actual gas-supply crisis existed. DUH/NABU v. Germany (Lawsuits against Binz LNG pipeline (Rügen)) (Germany, Federal Administrative Court)
Germany: Higher Regional Court holds that climate-threat based necessity defense against trespass is not justified when it trespass was exclusively for political protest
Public prosecutors brought an action against an activist who had occupied a tree for 3 days in a privately owned forest. According to the activist, the action was done to prevent local forest clearing associated with a development project.
On November 7, 2022, the District Court of Flensburg issued an acquittal, based on a necessity defense under Section 34 of the German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, StGB). It held that a human-compatible global climate is a legal interest protected under § 34 StGB, anchored in basic rights and the state objective to protect the environment. It also determined that climate change poses a present and imminent danger to both collective and individual legal interests. Balancing the interests of avoiding irreversible climate damages and the property owner’s private commercial interests, the court ruled that the criminal trespass was justifiable and “appropriate” within the meaning of § 34 StGB.
On August 9, 2023, the Higher Regional Court of Schleswig-Holstein (Oberlandesgericht Schleswig-Holstein) overturned the lower court’s decision, holding that the activist’s occupation was not justified by necessity under § 34 StGB. The court recognized that a human-compatible global climate constitutes a legally protected interest capable of being protected under § 34 StGB. However, the court held that the requirements of the defense were not satisfied in this case. In particular, occupying a single tree was not sufficiently capable of directly averting the broader danger posed by climate change. The court distinguished between measures that directly prevent a concrete climate-related harm and protest actions intended primarily to raise public awareness or exert political pressure.
The Higher Regional Court also emphasized the requirement that the act be an appropriate and necessary means of averting the danger. Because the tree occupation lacked sufficient causal efficacy in relation to the global climate threat, the requirements of § 34 StGB were not met. OLG Schleswig-Holstein (Tree occupation in private forest) (Germany, Higher Regional Court of Schleswig)
Germany: Regional court rejected a greenwashing challenge based on average consumer’s understanding of the advertisement
The Federation of German Consumer Organisations (Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband, vzbv) brought an action against Tesla in the Regional Court of Berlin (Landgericht Berlin), challenging Tesla’s advertising and information practices. The case concerned, among other things, Tesla’s representation that its electric vehicles have “CO₂ emissions: 0 g/km” and statements referring to a “sustainable energy” transition and an “emission-free future.”
The Regional court rejected the challenge to the 0 g/km CO₂ claim, holding that the statement was not misleading under Section 5a(1) UWG. It considered the statement understandable to the average consumer as referring to the absence of CO₂ emissions during vehicle operation, which was undisputedly accurate. The court also held that information concerning Tesla’s participation in emissions certificate trading was not a material piece of information that had to be disclosed to consumers.
The separate challenge concerning Tesla’s Sentry Mode, which enables camera surveillance around the vehicle, was resolved through Tesla’s submission of a cease-and-desist declaration following the proceedings. This aspect therefore did not result in a substantive judicial determination. Vzbv v. Tesla (Injunction against Tesla’s ‘0g CO2/km’ advertising) (Germany, Regional Court of Berlin)
Germany: Regional Court finds climate neutral claims misleading after scrutinizing their certification methodology
German Environmental Action (Deutsche Umwelthilfe, DUH) brought an action against the German drugstore chain DM in the Regional Court of Karlsruhe (Landgericht Karlsruhe), concerning DM’s environmental claims made about its private-label products. DM advertised some of its products, including certain liquid soaps, sunscreen, and shower cream as “climate neutral” (klimaneutral), and advertised certain dishwashing detergent as “environment neutral” (umweltneutral). The Regional Court upheld the claim, prohibiting DM from continuing the challenged environmental claims.
With respect to the “climate neutral” claims, the court found them as misleading advertising and, in some instances, misleading omission of material information. Consumers were not adequately informed on the product packaging about which stages of the product life cycle were covered by the claim or which criteria underpinned the certification. Merely naming the certification provider, without providing a specific website reference, was insufficient.
More fundamentally, the court found that the certification methodology underlying the “climate neutral” claim could not substantiate the expectation that product-related emissions had been permanently neutralized. The certification relied, among other things, on payments to forest-protection projects in Peru. The court held that such projects did not guarantee a permanent one-to-one neutralization of the relevant CO₂ emissions, particularly because the carbon stored in protected forests could ultimately be released and atmospheric CO₂ persists far longer than the duration of the projects.
The court also prohibited the use of the “environment neutral” claim. It found that consumers would understand the label as indicating a balanced overall environmental impact. However, the certification methodology considered only five environmental impact categories and excluded eight other recognized categories. The court therefore considered the claim excessive and inaccurate, describing it as “premature marketing.” DUH v. dm-drogerie markt GmbH (Germany, Regional Court of Karlsruhe)
Germany: Higher Regional Court explains that a misleading impression of an eye-catching advertisement can only be corrected by a clear qualification that itself participates in the visual prominence
A Consumer Protection Agency (Verbraucherzentrale) brought an action against a major nationwide discount supermarket chain (Netto Marken-Discount), concerning the supermarket chain’s private brand BioBio’s prominent front-label slogan of a wine reading “FOOT PRINT reduces your CO₂ footprint” (“FOOT PRINT REDUZIERT DEINEN CO₂ FUSSABDRUCK”). The environmental benefit, however, related only to the glass bottle, which was produced using a high proportion of recycled glass and renewable electricity. The wine itself was not produced using a particularly low-emission method.
On July 14, 2023, the Regional Court ruled in favor of the consumer association, prohibiting the supermarket chain from continuing the use of the slogan. The court found the practice as misleading advertising under § 5(2)(1) UWG, given that the slogan can create a false impression among average consumers that the wine itself was produced in an environmentally friendly manner, rather than just the bottle.
On November 15, 2023, the Higher Regional Court of Nuremberg (Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg) upheld the lower court’s decision. The court rejected the argument that information on the back label could cure the misleading front-label claim. Where an environmental claim is presented prominently as eye-catching advertising (blickfangmäßige Werbung), a misleading impression must be corrected by a clear and unambiguous qualification that itself participates in the visual prominence of the claim. The “ECO2Bottle” symbol did not sufficiently connect the back-label explanation to the prominent CO₂ claim.
The court emphasized that environmental advertising is subject to particularly strict standards, given the importance of environmental characteristics to consumer purchasing decisions and the potential ambiguity of environmental terminology. Because the claim was at least capable of being understood as referring to the wine itself, that ambiguity was sufficient to establish misleading advertising. Misleading advertising — CO2 footprint reduction wine ‘Footprint organic wine’ (Germany, Higher Regional Court of Nuremberg)
Germany: Regional Court finds information accessed through a QR code insufficient to cure misleading impressions made from environmental advertising
A registered association for the promotion of commercial interests, specifically dedicated to combating unfair competition, brought an action against a beverage trading company under the brand name “WUNDERBRAEU” in the Regional Court of Munich I (Landgericht München I). The Plaintiff challenged the Defendant’s advertising of beer as “CO₂-positive” and “climate neutral.”
The Regional Court upheld the claim, finding the advertising misleading and unlawful. The court found that the product packaging did not provide consumers with sufficiently clear information about the basis of those claims.
The court explained that environmental claims of this nature require immediate and sufficiently prominent clarification on the product itself. A QR code directing consumers to an external website, where they could find information about the measures underlying the claimed climate neutrality or positive carbon balance, was insufficient. Given the strong influence of environmental claims on consumer purchasing decisions and the scientific complexity of concepts such as “climate neutral” and “CO₂-positive,” consumers must not be left to investigate or infer how the claimed environmental balance is achieved.
The court also found the company’s presentation of the beer’s origin misleading. The use of the brand name “Wunderbraeu” together with a Munich address created the impression that the beer was brewed locally in Munich, although it was actually produced elsewhere. Wettbewerbszentrale v. Wunderbräu (Advertising beer as ‘CO2 positive’/’climate-neutral production’) (Germany, Regional Court of Munich I)
Germany: Higher Regional Court holds that climate neutrality achieved through offsetting can be advertised as climate neutral, so long as the methodology is clearly communicated
A consumer advocacy organization (Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.) brought an action against an energy supply company (Vattenfall GmbH) in the Regional Court of Hamburg (Landgericht Hamburg), concerning the company’s online advertising of their gas as “100% climate neutral.” The Plaintiff argued that the information provided was insufficient because consumers were not given a sufficiently detailed explanation of the contribution made by individual compensation mechanisms and projects.
On January 25, 2024, the Regional Court dismissed the lawsuit, finding that the advertising was lawful because it clearly communicates that the claimed climate neutrality is achieved through offsetting/compensation. The court explained that the company was not required to provide an exhaustive description of every individual compensation project or a detailed breakdown of the respective contribution of different measures directly in the advertisement.
On February 26, 2025, the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg (Oberlandesgericht Hamburg) upheld the lower court’s decision. Vzbv v. Vattenfall GmbH (Advertising climate-neutral gas via CO2 compensation) (Germany, Higher Regional Court of Hamburg)
Germany: Another Regional Court finds information accessed through a QR code insufficient to cure misleading impressions made from environmental advertising
The Centre for Combating Unfair Competition (Wettbewerbszentrale) brought an action against Aldi Süd in the Regional Court of Duisburg (Landgericht Duisburg), concerning the company’s advertising claim that it had been the “first climate-neutral food retailer in Germany since 2017.”
The Regional Court found the advertising misleading and contrary to German unfair competition law. The court reasoned that the advertisement did not sufficiently disclose that Aldi Süd’s claimed climate neutrality was based on the purchase of carbon-offset certificates through ClimatePartner, rather than solely or primarily on reductions of the company’s own greenhouse-gas emissions. The court held that a QR code or web link directing consumers to further information about the compensation mechanism was insufficient to correct the misleading impression created by the climate-neutrality claim. Given the particular importance consumers attach to environmental characteristics, the advertising needed to make the basis of the claim sufficiently clear in the advertisement itself. Wettbewerbszentrale v. Aldi Süd (‘First climate-neutral food retailer’) (Germany, Regional Court of Duisburg)
Germany: Regional Court holds that a claim of climate neutrality is misleading when the method of offsetting is not communicated upfront
In 2022, German Environmental Action (Deutsche Umwelthilfe, DUH) brought an action against Shell Germany in the Regional Court of Hamburg (Landgericht Hamburg), concerning Shell’s advertising for “CO₂-neutral” driving and “CO₂-neutral” motor oil.
The Regional Court upheld the claim, finding the advertising misleading, as the claims did not provide consumers with sufficiently clear information about the nature and extent of the measures said to achieve CO₂ neutrality. The court emphasized that environmental claims such as “CO₂-neutral” and “CO₂ compensation” are subject to particularly strict requirements of accuracy, clarity, and transparency. In line with the Federal Court of Justice’s judgment of June 27, 2024 (I ZR 98/23), the court held that where an environmental term is capable of different interpretations, the relevant meaning must be explained clearly in the advertising itself. The court specifically rejected an approach under which consumers would have to obtain the necessary information elsewhere. DUH v. Shell plc (‘CO2-neutral’ motor oil) (Germany, Regional Court of Hamburg)
Germany: Regional Court finds future-oriented climate claim lacking clarification as misleading
German Environmental Action (Deutsche Umwelthilfe, DUH) brought an action against TUI Cruises GmbH in the Regional Court of Hamburg, concerning the future-oriented environmental advertising claim “2050 Decarbonized Cruise Operation (Net-zero).”
On August 9, 2024, the Regional Court upheld the claim, prohibiting TUI Cruises from using the claim in the manner challenged. The judgment was not yet final.
The court held that the statement was ambiguous and therefore misleading. Consumers could understand “decarbonized” and “net-zero” either as meaning that CO₂ emissions from cruise operations would be completely avoided by 2050, or as meaning that remaining emissions would be balanced through compensation measures. Because these terms do not have a sufficiently uniform meaning for the average consumer, the court explained that the claim created a heightened need for clarification.
The court subsequently found that TUI Cruises had not adequately provided this clarification. This was particularly significant because TUI relied, among other things, on measures such as the future use of LNG for dual-fuel ships, as well as assumptions concerning future technologies and fuels. DUH v. TUI Cruises GmbH (‘2050 Net Zero’ advertising) (Germany, Regional Court of Hamburg)
Germany: Higher Regional Court finds omission of material information as misleading, even when the information was searchable elsewhere in the website
German Environmental Action (Deutsche Umwelthilfe, DUH) brought an action against Deutsche Lufthansa AG in the Regional Court of Cologne (Landgericht Köln), concerning the advertising for the use of Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF), which Lufthansa advertised that passengers could “reduce their flight-related CO₂ emissions directly during booking through the use of sustainable aviation fuels (SAF).” The plaintiff also challenged the advertising of the option to offset flight emissions through contributions to climate protection projects.
On March 21, 2025, the Regional Court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, prohibiting both practices. The court found the SAF advertisement misleading, as it could falsely lead consumers to believe their purchase would directly apply to and reduce emissions of their specific booked flight. Regarding the option to offset flight emissions, the court found that the scope and mechanics of the promised emission reduction were left ambiguous.
On July 8, 2026, the Higher Regional Court of Cologne (Oberlandesgericht Köln) partially upheld the lower court’s decision, also prohibiting Lufthansa from advertising SAF. (The claim on climate protection projects was withdrawn by the Plaintiff.) The court found the statement misleading because consumers were not informed with sufficient clarity about when the SAF would actually be used, which was within six months of the purchase. The court considered the timing of the emissions-reduction measure to be material information for environmentally conscious consumers. The possibility that the passenger could make their particular flight more environmentally friendly through the physical use of SAF was an important reason for paying the additional charge. The information was only available at a later stage, including in FAQs on a separate level of the website, and was therefore insufficient.
The court did not, however, accept all of DUH’s broader arguments concerning Lufthansa’s duty to disclose the full range of climate impacts associated with aviation, including non-CO₂ effects such as contrails and nitrogen oxides. The decision therefore represents a partial success for DUH. DUH v. Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Germany, Higher Regional Court of Cologne)
Germany: Regional Court holds that climate commitments cannot be advertised without a substantiated explanation of how the goal will be achieved
German Environmental Action (Deutsche Umwelthilfe, DUH) brought a case against McDonald’s in the Regional Court of Munich I (Landgericht München I), concerning McDonald’s advertising of a commitment to become “climate neutral” by 2050, including its supply chain. According to DUH, McDonald’s only provided vague and insufficient information about how the target would be achieved. The information did not set out a sufficiently concrete implementation strategy, including adequate measures for achieving the claimed future climate neutrality.
Although DUH sent a formal warning to McDonald’s, McDonald’s only amended the advertisement without issuing a cease-and-desist declaration. DUH subsequently brought proceedings, which McDonald’s acknowledged.
In June 2026, the Regional Court issued a recognition judgment (Anerkenntnisurteil) prohibiting McDonald’s from making the challenged 2050 climate-neutrality claim without sufficient and substantiated explanation of how the target would be achieved. DUH v. McDonald’s (Germany, Regional Court of Munich I)
Germany: Company gets prohibited from advertising its climate commitment for failing to defend its advertisement within the applicable deadline
German Environmental Action (Deutsche Umwelthilfe, DUH) brought an action against Bayer AG in the Regional Court of Cologne (Landgericht Köln), concerning Bayer’s advertising of a commitment to achieve “net-zero emissions” across its entire value chain by 2050. Bayer’s advertising stated the 2050 net-zero ambition but provided concrete information only concerning measures planned through 2030. It did not explain how the company intended to achieve net-zero emissions across its full value chain from 2050 onwards. After DUH initiated proceedings, Bayer amended the advertising but did not provide a cease-and-desist declaration.
Bayer failed to defend the action within the applicable deadline. As a result, the Regional Court issued a default judgment (Versäumnisurteil) against Bayer, prohibiting the challenged advertising. DUH v. Bayer (Germany, Regional Court of Cologne)