Climate Litigation Updates (November 17, 2025)

The Sabin Center for Climate Change Law publishes summaries of developments in climate-related litigation twice each month. We also add these developments to The Climate Litigation Database. If you know of any cases we have missed, please email us at [email protected].

HERE ARE THE ADDITIONS TO THE CLIMATE LITIGATION DATABASE FOR UPDATE #205

FEATURED U.S. CASE

Federal District Court Enjoined CARB from Enforcing Clean Truck Partnership Against Manufacturers

The federal district court for the Eastern District of California granted heavy-duty truck and engine manufacturers’ motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the Executive Officer of CARB, and Governor Gavin Newsom from implementing, enforcing, attempting to enforce, or threatening to enforce the Clean Truck Partnership, a 2023 agreement in which CARB agreed to undertake certain regulatory actions sought by the manufacturers and the manufacturers agreed to meet certain state clean vehicle standards. The court found that the manufacturers showed that there were clear questions going to the merits of their claim that the Clean Air Act preempts the Clean Truck Partnership and that CARB’s filing of a breach of contract lawsuit on October 27 to enforce the agreement (discussed below in the “New Cases” section) was sufficient to establish concrete and nonspeculative irreparable harm. The court also found that the balance of equities tipped in the manufacturers’ favor. The court denied the preliminary injunction motion to the extent relief was sought on the basis of the manufacturers’ preemption claims for six sets of CARB regulations; a now-superseded May 2025 manufacturers advisory correspondence expressing CARB’s intent to continue enforcing its vehicle standards even if the President signed Congressional Review Act resolutions disapproving the preemption waivers for the standards; and an executive order issued by Governor Newsom in June 2025 that directed CARB to develop clean vehicle regulations. The court found that the manufacturers failed to establish irreparable harm for these claims. The court also found that the manufacturers’ First Amendment claim did not provide grounds for a preliminary injunction. Daimler Truck North America LLC v. California Air Resources Board, No. 2:25-cv-02255 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2025)

U.S. DECISIONS AND SETTLEMENTS

Eighth Circuit Upheld District Court’s Decision to Dismiss Greenwashing Case Against Nike with Prejudice

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of a consumer’s putative class action against Nike USA, Inc. and a subsidiary alleging that the defendants falsely and misleadingly advertised “Sustainability Collection” products as sustainable and environmentally friendly. The plaintiff claimed that the marketing and labeling of the products led consumers to believe that the products were “sustainable”; “made with recycled fibers” which “reduce waste and our carbon footprint”; a “move to zero carbon and zero waste”; made from “sustainable materials”; and environmentally friendly. The only issue presented on appeal was whether the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the case with prejudice. The Eighth Circuit therefore did not address the district court’s conclusion that the plaintiff failed to state a claim, including because she failed to plausibly allege that the products were not made with any recycled or organic fibers. On the question of whether dismissal with prejudice was appropriate, the Eighth Circuit found no error of law or abuse of discretion, noting, among other things, that the plaintiff had failed to properly seek leave to file a second amended complaint after the defendants filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the first amended complaint contained the same “glaring pleading deficiencies” that were in the initial complaint. Ellis v. Nike USA, Inc., No. 24-2420 (8th Cir. Nov. 7, 2025)

D.C. Circuit Upheld Biden Administration Efficiency Standards for Furnaces and Water Heaters

In a 2-1 decision, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied manufacturers’, trade groups’, and energy providers’ petitions for review challenging the Biden administration’s amendments to energy efficiency standards for consumer furnaces and commercial water heaters. The court was not persuaded by the petitioners’ contention that because the standards would drive less efficient noncondensing consumer furnaces and commercial water heaters out of the market in favor of condensing furnaces and water heaters, the standards would impermissibly make “unavailable” a product that offers unique performance characteristics and features. The court also rejected arguments that the U.S. Department of Energy’s economic justification for the standards was inadequate and that the agency failed to adhere to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act’s procedural requirements. The dissenting judge would have ruled that the standards were contrary to law because they would result in the “unavailability” of “traditional, ‘non-condensing’ gas furnaces and water heaters,” which have a “performance characteristic” that consumers value (i.e., the ability to vent exhaust up a standard chimney). She also would have found that the agency relied on a flawed model to determine that the standards were economically justified. American Gas Association v. U.S. Department of Energy, No. 22-1030 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 4, 2025)

Fifth Circuit Rejected NEPA and Other Challenges to FERC Authorization of Natural Gas Pipeline Expansion Project

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied petitions for review challenging the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC’s) authorization of a project to expand capacity at three compressor stations on a natural gas pipeline serving the Pacific Northwest. Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Fifth Circuit concluded that FERC did not act arbitrarily and capriciously by adopting its environmental impact statement and approving the expansion project. The court cited the deference due to FERC’s NEPA review under the Supreme Court’s decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County and rejected environmental organizations’ contentions that FERC failed to consider the impacts of a no-action alternative, that FERC’s review should have considered replacement of the compressors (which under FERC regulations is exempt from NEPA review) as a connected action, and that FERC did not adequately consider public health and safety issues. The Fifth Circuit also rejected the project applicant’s challenge to FERC’s denial of a request for a predetermination allowing the applicant to roll project costs into base rates in a future proceeding (though the court found that the applicant had standing and that its claim was ripe). In addition, the Fifth Circuit rejected Washington and Oregon’s claims challenging FERC’s determinations under the Natural Gas Act. Gas Transmission Northwest, L.L.C. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Nos. 24-60002, 24-60197, 24-60280, 24-60354 (5th Cir. Oct. 28, 2025)

D.C. Circuit Declined to Stay FERC Authorization of Louisiana LNG Plant and Terminal

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied petitioners’ joint motion for a stay pending review of FERC’s authorization of the Calcasieu Pass 2 liquefied natural gas (LNG) liquefaction plant and export terminal in southwestern Louisiana. FERC issued a final supplemental environmental impact statement for the project in May 2025 and subsequently issued an order implementing its original authorization of the project in 2024. The petitioners’ stay motion focused on harms from construction, not operation, of the project. The D.C. Circuit, in a one-page order, found that the petitioners did not satisfy the stringent requirements for a stay pending court review. Dardar v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, No. 24-1291 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 20, 2025)

Following Supreme Court NEPA Reversal, D.C. Circuit Remanded Utah Rail Line Case to Surface Transportation Board Without Vacatur 

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted a motion for remand without vacatur filed by the applicant and proposed operator for a rail line to transport waxy crude oil from the rural Uinta Basin in Utah to the national rail network. In May 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a portion of the D.C. Circuit’s August 2023 decision that concluded that the Surface Transportation Board (STB) violated NEPA when it approved the rail line. The Supreme Court did not address the D.C. Circuit’s determinations that the STB violated the Endangered Species Act and the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination (ICCT) Act. The applicant and proposed operator argued in their remand motion that the Supreme Court rejected the D.C. Circuit’s primary basis for vacating the STB’s approval and that the other violations “involved nothing more than insufficient or inappropriate explanations,” which would readily be remedied on remand. Environmental petitioners had urged the D.C. Circuit to reaffirm vacatur, arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision did not invalidate the D.C. Circuit’s ruling on certain “downline” effects of the rail line; the environmental petitioners also argued that the ESA violations were serious. Petitioner Eagle County also argued that vacatur was appropriate based on flaws in the STB’s NEPA analysis that the Supreme Court did not address; the County also argued that the ICCT Act violations warranted vacatur. Eagle County v. Surface Transportation Board, No. 22-1019, 22-1020 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 17, 2025)

Rhode Island Federal Court Ordered HUD to Resume Work to Unfreeze Retrofit Funding During Shutdown

On November 4, 2025, the federal district court for the District of Rhode Island ordered the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to resume processing and payment of Green and Resilient Retrofit Program awards in accordance with its previous orders, notwithstanding the current lapse in appropriations. The plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce on October 16 in which they argued that work to unfreeze the GRRP awards in compliance with the court’s orders was clearly activity “authorized by law” that could continue during the federal government shutdown. Woonasquatucket River Watershed Council v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, No. 1:25-cv-00097 (D.R.I. Nov. 4, 2025)

Washington Federal Court Sent Climate Change Wrongful Death Suit Back to State Court

The federal district court for the Western District of Washington remanded a climate change-related wrongful death action to state court. The plaintiff seeks to hold manufacturers, distributors, and sellers of fossil fuels liable under product liability and public nuisance theories for her mother’s death during the Pacific Northwest heat dome event in 2021. The court rejected the defendants’ position that there was federal diversity jurisdiction because one of the defendants—a company that owned a pipeline—had been fraudulently joined. The court was satisfied that the pipeline owner was a citizen of Washington. The court further found that the defendants did not meet their “heavy burden” of demonstrating that the company could not be liable for violating Washington’s product liability and public nuisance statutes. The court also concluded that the defendants’ arguments regarding procedural misjoinder were without merit because they raised state law issues that did not implicate federal subject matter jurisdiction. The court denied the plaintiff’s request for fees and costs, finding that removal was not “objectively unreasonable.” Leon v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 2:25-cv-1190 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 28, 2025) 

Federal Court Denied Organizations’ Request to Intervene as Defendants in U.S. Challenge to New York Climate Change Superfund Act

The federal district court for the Southern District of New York denied a motion by six nonprofit organizations to intervene to defend New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act in the lawsuit brought by the United States and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to challenge the Act’s constitutionality. The six organizations were Food & Water Watch, West Harlem Environmental Action, Inc., Citizens Campaign for the Environment, Catskill Mountainkeeper, Fridays For Future NYC, and Third Act Initiative, Inc. The organizations—which sought permissive intervention—described themselves as “devoted to addressing various aspects of the climate crisis, including adaptation, resilience, and corporate accountability,” and noted that some of proposed intervenors had played a “key role” in securing the Act’s passage. They argued that their participation as intervenors would “significantly contribute” to the “just and equitable adjudication of the legal questions presented,” given their “unique perspectives and deep experience with the challenged legislation and the issues it is designed to address.” The court found that the organizations’ “strong interest” in upholding the law was “well protected by the State’s strong interest in defending the statute,” and that the addition of the organizations as parties risked causing undue delay. The court granted the organizations leave to file an amici curiae brief. United States v. New York, No. 1:25-cv-03656 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 29, 2025)

Meat Producer to Pay $1.1 Million to Promote Climate-Smart Agriculture to Resolve New York Attorney General’s Climate Washing Suit

The New York Attorney General and JBS USA Food Company and JBS USA Food Company Holdings (together, JBS USA) entered into an assurance of discontinuance that resolved the Attorney General’s lawsuit alleging that the “Net Zero by 2040” advertising campaign of JBS USA, a meat products producer, was false and misleading in violation of New York State consumer protection laws. After a New York trial court dismissed the case without prejudice in January 2025, the Attorney General issued an investigative subpoena and prepared but did not file an amended complaint supported by additional evidence. In the assurance of discontinuance, JBS USA agreed to remove or revise existing U.S. consumer-facing published statements that concern Net Zero by 2040, consistent with guidance from the Attorney General, including by presenting Net Zero by 2040 as a “goal” instead of a “pledge” and by noting specific steps or actions that JBS USA is taking in cases where the company represents that JBS USA is “taking steps” or “taking real action.” JBS USA also committed to annual internal review of its consumer-facing statements regarding the Net Zero by 2040 goal for the next three years. In addition, JBS USA will pay $1.1 million to Cornell University’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences’ New York Soil Health and Resiliency Program for the purpose of supporting climate-smart agriculture, subject to approval by the University’s Gift Acceptance Committee and an agreement between the Attorney General and the University for appointment of an Attorney General representative to advise on the Program’s work. If the Gift Acceptance Committee does not approve JBS USA, the company will instead make the payment to the Council on the Environment of New York City (d/b/a GrowNYC) Greenmarket and Wholesale Programs’ farmer technical assistance initiatives for the purpose of supporting climate-smart agriculture.   People v. JBS USA Food Co., No. 450682/2024 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 31, 2025) 

Illinois Federal Court Dismissed Energy Bar Climate Washing Suit

The federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed with prejudice a consumer’s lawsuit asserting that the manufacturer, marketer, and seller of the Zbar energy snack bar deceptively labeled the product as “climate neutral certified.” The court concluded that because a third-party organization (Change Climate Project) had in fact certified the product as carbon neutral, the plaintiff’s claims under California consumer protection statutes failed, as did her breach of warranty and unjust enrichment claims. The court noted that the plaintiff had not alleged that the defendant violated Change Climate Project’s standards or that the Change Climate Project certification on the packaging was inaccurate. Salguero v. Mondelēz International, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-02139 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 27, 2025)

Federal Court Declined to Block Construction on Empire Wind I Offshore Wind Project

A federal district court in the District of Columbia denied a motion for a preliminary injunction blocking further work on the Empire Wind I offshore wind project off the coast of New York and New Jersey. The plaintiffs allege that federal authorizations for the project violated the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NEPA, and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. Their preliminary injunction motion focused only their MMPA claim. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm based on alleged disruptions to bottlenose dolphins that would negatively impact one plaintiff’s whale and dolphin watching business and deprive another plaintiff of aesthetic enjoyment from observing whales and dolphins. In addition, the court found that the equities did not favor the plaintiffs. The court noted that halting construction “would impose substantial costs and likely upend Empire Wind’s ability to finish the project,” which had been under construction for more than a year, and would therefore substantially harm the defendants as well as public interests in jobs and clean energy. The court was not persuaded by the plaintiffs’ arguments that the balance of equities nonetheless tipped in their favor, including their contention that “the potential harm of pausing construction is overstated because ‘the putative climate benefits of the project are highly uncertain.’” Save Long Beach Island, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Commerce, No. 1:25-cv-02214 (D.D.C. Oct. 24, 2025)

Connecticut Federal Magistrate Ruled in Dispute over Climate Change-Related Admissions in Adaptation Citizen Suit Against Bulk Petroleum Storage Terminal Owner

A magistrate judge in the federal district court for the District of Connecticut granted in part Conservation Law Foundation’s (CLF’s) motion to determine the sufficiency of defendant Pike Fuels Limited Partnership’s (Pike’s) answers and objections to CLF’s requests for admission in CLF’s citizen suit asserting that Pike violated the Clean Water Act and an industrial stormwater permit by failing to prepare a bulk petroleum storage terminal in New Haven, Connecticut, for the effects of climate change. The parties previously resolved most of their disputes regarding the adequacy of the defendants’ responses to the requests for admissions, the purpose of which is narrow the scope of issues for trial. The magistrate directed Pike to respond to six requests regarding whether Pike treats storm surge discharges as stormwater discharges and other requests related to how Pike considered the impacts of climate change factors. The court sustained Pike’s objections to six other requests for admissions on the grounds that the requests sought admission of purely legal conclusions or were too vague, imprecise, or speculative, including a request for admission that Pike could “take steps to modify” the New Haven terminal “to withstand the impacts of climate change” and various requests regarding Pike’s awareness regarding climate change factors. Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. Pike Fuels LP, No. 3:23-cv-00932 (D. Conn. Oct. 23, 2025)

Washington Federal Court Enjoined Federal Defendants from Terminating Climate Resilience Funding; Government Appealed

The federal district court for the Western District of Washington granted the State of Washington’s motion for a preliminary injunction barring federal defendants from terminating climate resilience funding awarded to the State in 2022 and 2023. The court rejected the federal defendants’ contentions that the suit raised “simply contractual claims disguised as [Administrative Procedure Act (APA )] claims” and that the Court of Federal Claims therefore had exclusive jurisdiction over the suit under the Tucker Act. The court found that the Washington sought to vindicate statutory and constitutional rights, not contractual rights, and that the relief sought—an injunction to obtain access to the funds—“is not properly characterized as money damages.” In addition, the court was persuaded by Washington’s argument that “cooperative agreements” such as those at issue in this case are not enforceable under the Tucker Act because they “do not confer a direct and tangible benefit” to the federal government. The court concluded that recent per curiam decisions by the Supreme Court did not require that the case be filed in the Court of Federal Claims; the court also distinguished recent D.C. Circuit and Fourth Circuit decisions finding that cases challenging termination of grant funds and found that these decisions were at odds with binding Ninth Circuit precedent. Considering the legal standard for granting a preliminary injunction, the court found that Washington was highly likely to succeed on its APA claims that the terminations were arbitrary and capricious and violated Office of Management and Budget regulations and related guidance. In addition, the court found that Washington was likely to succeed in demonstrating that the terminations violated the Spending Clause by imposing conditions well after the awards were granted. The court further found that the record was sufficient to show irreparable harm from the State’s decreased ability to protect overburdened communities and to prepare for the negative effects of climate change. The court wrote that “[t]hese are the kinds of injuries that money cannot necessarily solve, as lost time itself can make future response to climate change yet more difficult.” In addition, the court found that the balance of equities and public interest favored issuance of an injunction, rejecting the defendants’ contention that frustration of the President’s policies or an irreversible payment of funds outweighed countervailing interests. The court imposed a nominal $100 bond. On October 30, the federal defendants filed a notice of appeal. Washington v. U.S. Department of Commerce, No. 2:25-cv-01507 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 22, 2025)

Massachusetts Federal Court Granted Government Request for Stay of Proceedings in Lawsuit Challenging Formation of Climate Working Group

The federal district court for the District of Massachusetts granted the Secretary of Energy and other federal defendants’ motion to temporarily stay proceedings in Environmental Defense Fund and Union of Concerned Scientists’ suit challenging the establishment of the Climate Working Group and its utilization to produce a report on which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) relied as a basis for the proposed rescission of the endangerment finding for greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The defendants told the court in their motion that because this Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) case “does not present any imminent threat to the safety of human life or the protection of property,” Department of Justice (DOJ) employees were not authorized to work on it during the federal government shutdown. The plaintiffs opposed the stay, arguing that other exceptions would permit DOJ employees to work on the case and that any delay in the case would prejudice the plaintiffs by preventing them from obtaining records and relief under FACA while EPA staff continued to work on rulemaking, including the rescission of the endangerment finding. Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Wright, No. 1:25-cv-12249 (D. Mass. Oct. 22, 2025)

Colorado Federal Court Certified Landowners Class in Orphaned Wells Suit

The federal district court for the District of Colorado granted a motion by Colorado landowners for class certification to pursue claims based on allegations that the defendant companies took unlawful actions to escape the costs of plugging orphaned oil and gas wells on the plaintiffs’ land. Among the alleged harms of the unplugged wells were methane emissions. The court found that the plaintiffs met the prerequisites for certification in Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, i.e., that the class was so numerous that joinder of all members was impracticable; that there were questions of law or fact common to the class; that the claims or defenses of the representative parties were typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and that the plaintiffs would fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The court further found that the plaintiffs satisfied the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) for certifying a class for declaratory and injunctive relief common to the whole class as well as the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) that “questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” McCormick v. HRM Resources, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-00823 (D. Colo. Oct. 17, 2025)

Massachusetts Federal Court Dismissed Climate Washing-Related Claims Brought by Former Employee of Scientific Publisher

The federal district court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed with prejudice federal claims brought by a former employee of a scientific journal publisher. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants’ business practices conflicted with their public climate-related pledges. The business activities that he contended were inconsistent included political contributions to politicians who “deny climate change,” provision of data services used by fossil fuel companies, and publication of journals on petroleum exploration and production. The plaintiff, who had purchased shares in one of the defendants “so that he had an avenue beyond his employment to push the company to improve its record on corporate social responsibility,” asserted a securities fraud claim. He also asserted a disability discrimination claim under the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) and an analogous state law, alleging discrimination based on his climate advocacy. The court dismissed the employee’s securities fraud claim because it found he did not adequately plead economic loss and loss causation. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s ADA and the analogous state law claim because the plaintiff failed to file a timely charge with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. Having dismissed the plaintiff’s federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claims for wrongful discharge and promissory estoppel and dismissed those claims without prejudice. Lyall v. Elsevier Inc., No. 24-cv-12022 (D. Mass. Oct. 17, 2025)

California Federal Court Dismissed California Avocado Growers’ Claims that Suppliers of Mexico-Grown Avocados Misrepresented Sustainability; Leave to Amend Granted

The federal district court for the Central District of California dismissed claims by California avocado farms that distributors and suppliers of Mexican-grown avocados misrepresented the sustainability of their avocados. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants source their avocados from deforested land in Mexico, which contributes to climate change and other environmental impacts. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to allege statutory standing for its claims of fraudulent business practices under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and of violation of California’s False Advertising Law because they did not allege actual reliance on the alleged misrepresentations, even by a consumer. The court reserved ruling on the question of whether the plaintiffs could rely on third-party consumers’ reliance on the alleged misrepresentations to establish standing. The court also found that the plaintiffs failed to state “unfair” or “unlawful” business practice claims under the UCL. In addition, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim, finding that their complaint did not allege a basis for the allegation that the plaintiffs conveyed a market share benefit on the defendants. The court granted the plaintiffs leave to amend all of their claims. Kachuck Enterprises v. Mission Produce, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-01523 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2025)

California Appellate Court Said CEQA Review for San Diego’s Removal of Building Height Limit in Coastal Zone Was Inadequate

The California Court of Appeal reversed a trial court judgment in favor of the City of San Diego in a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) challenge to the City’s 2022 approval of a ballot measure to exclude the Midway-Pacific Highway Community Planning area from the Coastal Height Limit Overlay Zone, which generally imposes a 30-foot height limit for buildings. The appellate court discussed “a few nonexhaustive examples” of how the CEQA review failed to consider potential significant environmental impacts of substantially taller buildings, including failure to consider increased construction-related air quality and greenhouse gas impacts as a result of increased building heights. Save Our Access v. City of San Diego, No. D084132 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2025)

North Dakota Court Reduced Damages Against Greenpeace Entities in Dakota Access Pipeline Case

A North Dakota trial court granted in part and denied in part Greenpeace entities’ motions for judgment as a matter of law and to reduce damages awarded to the developers and owner of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The court’s decision on the motions reduced the damages of almost $667 million awarded by the jury to $345,358,436. The court disallowed the jury’s verdict as to the pipeline developers’ claims of trespass to land and aiding and abetting trespass to land, finding that there was no evidence that the developers possessed any interest in real estate. In addition, the court disallowed claims against both the developers and owner for conversion and aiding and abetting conversion, finding that there was no evidence showing that equipment was disabled for a significant period of time. The court also disallowed claims of defamation per se as duplicative of the defamation claim. The court denied the Greenpeace entities’ motion for judgment as a matter of law on the pipeline owner’s claims of trespass to land and aiding and abetting trespass to land, as well as all claims by all plaintiffs of trespass to chattel and aiding and abetting trespass to chattel, nuisance and aiding and abetting nuisance, conspiracy, defamation, and tortious interference with business claims. The court reduced damages for the conspiracy claims; limited exemplary damages for the developers on the trespass to chattels, aiding and abetting trespass to chattels, nuisance, and aiding and abetting nuisance claims; and disallowed all exemplary damages for the defamation claims. North Dakota Monitor reported that plaintiffs plan to appeal the reductions in the defamation and conspiracy damages and that the defendants intended to ask for a new trial after entry of final judgment and to appeal if that request is unsuccessful. Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, No. 30-2019-0V-00180 (N.D. Dist. Ct. Oct. 28, 2025)

New York Court Ordered DEC to Promulgate Regulations Implementing Climate Act’s Emissions Reduction Mandates

A New York trial court ordered the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to promulgate regulations implementing the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA). The court concluded that the CLCPA mandated that DEC issue regulations by January 1, 2024 to ensure compliance with the law’s emissions reductions mandates and that under “well-established principles” of New York law, DEC did not have discretion not to follow the legislative directive. The court therefore rejected DEC’s contentions that promulgation of regulations was “infeasible” because of the costs that DEC believes achievement of the CLCPA’s emissions targets would impose on consumers. The court directed DEC to promulgate the regulations by February 6, 2026, which the court said would allow the State Legislature an opportunity to amend the CLCPA when its next session commences in January 2026. The court cautioned that, “having afforded [DEC] with the time to both further develop its regulations and address its concerns to the political branches,” the court was “highly unlikely to grant extensions” of the deadline. The State has indicated that it would likely appeal, which would provide an automatic stay of the order. Citizen Action of New York v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, No. 903160-25 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 24, 2025)

Oregon Court Denied Chevron Request to Strike References to Climate Change Studies Relied on by County of Multnomah but Said They Would “Carry Absolutely No Weight”

In a climate lawsuit against fossil fuel industry-related defendants brought by Multnomah County in Oregon, E&E News reported that an Oregon Circuit Court denied Chevron Corporation and Chevron U.S.A. Inc.’s (Chevron’s) motion to strike references to articles supported or otherwise influenced by plaintiff's lead counsel. Chevron argued that the County’s lead counsel “failed to affirmatively disclose to the Court that he has supported or otherwise influenced at least two climate change studies, published in Nature in April and May 2025, that Plaintiff and its experts cite and rely upon as though they are independent works of scientific research.”  Chevron argued that this constituted “fraud on the court” and was “part of a broader pattern” and asked the court to strike all references to the two studies and to consider ordering expedited discovery and a hearing on the lead counsel’s alleged misconduct. E&E News reported that the court found that there was not sufficient evidence to find “fraud on the court” but also stated that reliance on the studies “will carry absolutely no weight” and that “[t]his is simply not an appropriate way to practice law in the courts of the state of Oregon.” County of Multnomah v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 23CV25164 (Or. Cir. Ct. Oct. 30, 2025)

New Mexico Supreme Court Agreed to Hear Appeal from Dismissal of Lawsuit Alleging State’s Oil and Natural Gas Regulation Violated State Constitutional Rights

The New Mexico Supreme Court granted plaintiffs’ petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of an intermediate appellate court’s decision ordering dismissal of their claims under the New Mexico Constitution that the State’s system for regulating pollution from oil and natural gas violated the plaintiffs’ rights. The Supreme Court said it would review all five issues presented by the petition: (1) Did the appellate court fundamentally misapprehend its duty to enforce positive constitutional rights, wrongly ignore relevant constitutional jurisprudence from New Mexico and other states, and effectively erase the Pollution Control Clause by finding Plaintiffs’ claims under the Clause nonjusticiable and beyond judicial review?; (2) Did the appellate court erroneously conclude, on motions to dismiss, that Defendants have fulfilled their duties under the Pollution Control Clause by holding that any amount of pollution control and revenue raised from the extraction of oil and gas fulfills the duties imposed?; (3) Did the appellate court misconstrue and limit the power of the Declaratory Judgment Act?; (4) Did the appellate court err in deciding that substantive due process under the New Mexico Constitution cannot be invoked to protect residents from state actions permitting oil and gas pollution that harms their life, liberty, property, safety, happiness, and beautiful and healthful environment?; and (5) Did the appellate court err in deciding that the New Mexico Constitution’s equal protection clause can never protect classes of people disproportionally harmed by state actions permitting oil and gas pollution? Atencio v. State, No. S-1-SC-40980 (N.M. Nov. 10, 2025)

New York High Court Declined to Hear Plaintiffs’ Appeal in Challenge to New York City Public Employee Retirement Systems’ Fossil Fuel Divestment

The New York Court of Appeals denied a motion for leave to appeal by the parties who argued that the New York City public retirement systems violated their fiduciary duties by divesting from fossil fuel-based investments. In March 2025, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the case on standing grounds. Wong v. New York City Employees’ Retirement System, No. 2025-294 (N.Y. Oct. 21, 2025)

U.S. NEW CASES AND FILINGS

Challengers of California Climate Disclosure Laws Sought Preliminary Injunction in Supreme Court After Ninth Circuit Denied Request for Decision by November 3

In an appeal from a district court order denying a preliminary injunction enjoining two California laws requiring climate change-related disclosures by certain large companies, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the portion of the appellants’ emergency motion requesting that the Ninth Circuit merits panel rule by November 3, 2025 on their pending motion for injunction pending appeal. The Ninth Circuit directed that the case immediately be assigned to a merits panel and placed the case, which has been fully briefed as of November 6, on the calendar for January 2026. The appellants’ motion argued that they faced “imminent and irreparable First Amendment harm because California Senate Bills 253 and 261 require covered companies to publish State-mandated reports as soon as January 1, 2026, compelling them to speak the State’s preferred views on climate change, and Plaintiffs’ members are currently incurring unrecoverable compliance costs.” The appellants told the Ninth Circuit that a ruling by November 3 would permit “orderly Supreme Court review if necessary.” On November 12, the plaintiffs notified the Ninth Circuit that they had filed an emergency application in the Supreme Court for an injunction pending appeal. Iowa and 24 other states filed an amicus brief in support of the emergency application. They argued California was attempting to be a “national regulator” of greenhouse gas emissions and that companies across the country would be irreparably harmed if the laws were allowed to go into effect. Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Randolph, No. 25-5327 (9th Cir. Oct. 29, 2025)

New York State Agreed to Suspend Effective Date of Gas Ban in New Buildings While Plaintiffs Pursue Appeal

On November 12, 2025, the New York Secretary of State and the plaintiffs challenging New York laws banning natural gas appliances and infrastructure in certain new buildings filed a stipulation in the federal district court for the Northern District of New York in which the Secretary of State agreed to suspend the January 1, 2026 effective date for the regulations implementing the prohibition. The suspension is to remain in place pending final disposition of the appeal in the Second Circuit of the district court’s ruling that the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act did not preempt the laws’ prohibitions, as well as during the disposition of any timely petition for writ of certiorari. The suspension will terminate 120 days after the issuance of the mandate of the Second Circuit if no writ of certiorari is sought; and if a party petitions for Supreme Court review of the Second Circuit decision, the suspension will remain in place until either 120 days after the Supreme Court denies the petition for writ of certiorari or, if the petition is granted, 120 days after the sending down of the Supreme Court’s judgment. The plaintiffs agreed to withdraw their motion in the district court for an injunction pending appeal and not to seek an injunction pending appeal in the Second Circuit. Mulhern Gas Co. v. Mosley, No. 1:23-cv-01267 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 12, 2025)

Climate Washing Case Filed in D.C. Court Against Beef Producer

Mighty Earth, a not-for-profit organization, filed a lawsuit on behalf of District of Columbia consumers against the beef producer JBS USA Food Company and JBS USA Food Company Holdings (JBS USA) alleging that JBS USA violated the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) by making false and misleading misrepresentations that it can achieve net zero emissions by 2040 and making material omissions about its operations’ environmental harms. Mighty Earth alleged that JBS USA and its parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates (together, JBS Group) are the world’s largest producer of animal protein and the fifth largest emitter of methane, and that industrialized beef production “is responsible for more [greenhouse gas] emissions than any other major food product, largely due to the natural digestive process in cows that produces methane as a byproduct which is then belched out and released into the atmosphere, known as enteric fermentation, and land use changes such as deforestation.” The complaint alleged that the defendants knowingly misrepresent their greenhouse gas emissions to consumers by only targeting reductions in the 3% of emissions attributable to JBS Group’s facilities and not addressing emissions from the supply chain, including from production of beef.  Mighty Earth asked the D.C. Superior Court for a declaration that JBS USA’s conduct is in violation of the CPPA, as well as an order enjoining conduct in violation of the CPPA as well as redress in the form of “corrective advertising to address consumer misunderstanding about the environmental harms” of the defendants’ practices. Mighty Earth also asked for costs and disbursements, including attorney fees and expert fees, and equitable relief as necessary to disgorge JBS USA of monies acquired as a result of unlawful trade practices. Mighty Earth v. JBS USA Food Co., No. 2025-CAB-006549 (D.C. Super. Ct., filed Sept. 29, 2025)

ExxonMobil Filed Suit Challenging California Climate Disclosure Laws

Exxon Mobil Corporation (ExxonMobil) filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Eastern District of California against California Air Resources Board officials and the California attorney general seeking to enjoin the implementation and enforcement of California’s climate change disclosure laws, S.B. 253 and S.B. 261. S.B. 253 requires companies doing business in California with annual revenues over $1 billion to disclose Scope 1, 2, and 3 greenhouse gas emissions; S.B. 261 requires companies doing business in California with annual revenues over $500 million to report on climate-related business risks. ExxonMobil asserted that both laws compel speech in violation of the First Amendment and that the National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996 expressly preempts S.B. 261. In support of its First Amendment claim, ExxonMobil alleged that the two statutes constitute content-based regulation of speech that requires ExxonMobil to use reporting frameworks for emissions and business risk that ExxonMobil believes are “misleading and counterproductive” (the Greenhouse Gas Protocol) and “fundamentally unsuitable for mandatory reporting” (the framework for business risk reporting). ExxonMobil contended that the laws should be subjected to strict scrutiny (rather than the relaxed scrutiny applicable to “commercial speech”) because the laws force companies “to speak in service of a state-preferred viewpoint blaming them for climate change.” ExxonMobil also asserted that regardless of the scrutiny applied, there is no constitutionally adequate justification for the burden on speech based on interests in consumer protection, investor protection, or emissions reduction. ExxonMobil asserted that “[t]here is no legitimate reason to require ExxonMobil to produce additional reports beyond what it already produces other than to force ExxonMobil to align with California’s views on climate change.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Sanchez, No. 2:25-cv-03104 (E.D. Cal., filed Oct. 24, 2025)

Lawsuit Alleged that Designation of Silverspot Butterflies as Threatened Was Arbitrary and Capricious, Including for Failing to Consider Climate Change a Major Factor

Three environmental organizations filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Colorado challenging a 2024 rule issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) that listed silverspot butterflies as threatened (rather than endangered), exempted certain agricultural practices from the prohibition on incidental take of silverspots, and determined that designation of critical habitat would not be prudent. The plaintiffs contended that FWS’s determination that silverspots are not endangered in a significant portion of their range was arbitrary and capricious, including because FWS determined that climate change was not a major factor affecting the silverspots. The plaintiffs asked the court to vacate the incidental take exemptions, to remand the threatened listing without vacatur, to order issuance of a new proposed rule within six months, and to carry out or require remedial relief for any harm to silverspot butterflies already caused by the challenged actions. WildEarth Guardians v. Nesvik, No. 1:25-cv-03453 (D. Colo., filed Oct. 30, 2025)

California Air Resources Board Filed Breach of Contract Action Against Heavy-Duty Engine Manufacturers

California Air Resources Board (CARB) sued four heavy-duty on-highway truck and engine manufacturers in California Superior Court for allegedly breaching the terms of the Clean Truck Partnership, a 2023 agreement in which the defendant companies agreed to sell “clean vehicles” in California in consideration for CARB’s taking certain steps, including initiation of rulemaking proceedings. CARB sought specific performance of the contract or, alternatively, reliance damages, rescission of the contract, and damages for the defendants’ breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. As discussed above in the “Featured Case,” several days after CARB filed this suit, the federal district court for the Eastern District of California granted the manufacturers’ motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the Clean Truck Partnership. In that case, the manufacturers’ challenge to the Clean Truck Partnership is part of a broader lawsuit seeking to block California's enforcement of certain state vehicle emissions standards without a Clean Air Act preemption waiver from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. California Air Resources Board v. Daimler Truck North America, LLC, No. 25CV151420 (Cal. Super. Ct., filed Oct. 27, 2025)

Center for Biological Diversity Filed Suits to Compel Response to Listing Petitions for Olympic Marmot and Gray Cat’s Eye

Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) filed a lawsuit asserting that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service failed to issue an initial determination within 90 days on CBD’s petition to list the Olympic marmot under the Endangered Species Act. CBD submitted its petition in May 2024. The complaint alleged that the marmot is primarily at risk from changes to its habitat, including changes to mountaintop ecosystems resulting from climate change. CBD asked the court to order FWS to issue the initial determination by a date certain. Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, No. 2:25-cv-02125 (W.D. Wash., filed Oct. 29, 2025)

CBD also filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Arizona to compel issuance of an initial determination on CBD’s April 2024 petition to list the gray cat’s eye under the Endangered Species Act. The complaint alleged that gray cat’s eye is a rare flower found only on dunes along the Columbia River in central Washington. CBD alleged that the plant faces threats from loss of sand supply due to the conversion of large portions of the lower Columbia Basin to industrial-scale agriculture as well as other factors including wildfires, declines in pollinating insects, and impacts from climate change that disrupt groundwater regimes. Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, No. 4:25-cv-00620 (D. Ariz., filed Nov. 6, 2025)

Challenge to FERC’s Reissued Certificate for Northeast Supply Enhancement Project Filed in D.C. Circuit

Environmental organizations, a homeowners associations, and a group of residents opposing the Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC’s (Transco’s) Northeast Supply Enhancement Project in New Jersey and New York filed a petition in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) reissuance in August 2025 of a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the project. The project would include new onshore and offshore natural gas pipeline and related facilities to increase capacity in Transco’s system, including approximately 23.3 miles of offshore pipeline in New Jersey State and New York State waters. Comments before FERC on the proposed reissuance included that it conflicts with New Jersey and New York laws regarding renewable energy and climate change. FERC previously issued a certificate in May 2019. Transco allowed the certificate to expire in May 2024. Central Jersey Safe Energy Coalition v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, No. 25-1252 (D.C. Cir., filed Oct. 30, 2025)

Solar for All Beneficiaries Filed “Precautionary” D.C. Circuit Challenges to Program’s Termination 

Parties that previously filed lawsuits in federal district courts challenging EPA’s termination of the Solar for All program filed protective petitions for review in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The parties included a labor organization, an individual homeowner, and nonprofit organizations who identified themselves as the “intended beneficiaries” of the Solar for All program; Harris County, Texas; and state recipients of Solar for All funding. These parties asserted that in their view the Clean Air Act’s provision mandating that judicial review for certain EPA actions be sought in the D.C. Circuit did not apply, but they filed the petitions for review as a “precautionary measure.” Rhode Island AFL-CIO v. EPA, No. 25-1216 (D.C. Cir., filed Oct. 20, 2025); Harris County v. EPA, No. 25-1217 (D.C. Cir., filed Oct. 20, 2025); Arizona v. EPA, No. 25-1218 (D.C. Cir., filed Oct. 20, 2025

HERE ARE RECENT GLOBAL CLIMATE LITIGATION ADDITIONS TO THE DATABASE

HIGHLIGHTED CASE

European Court of Human Rights: Court makes its first procedural climate rights ruling

On June 15, 2021, two NGOs (Greenpeace Nordic and Young Friends of the Earth (Nature and Youth)) and six individuals filed an application before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) against the Norwegian government. The case, with claims similar to Greenpeace Nordic Ass’n v. Ministry of Petroleum and Energy (People v Arctic Oil), was brought after the Applicants exhausted all national remedies available, with the final decision from the Norwegian Supreme Court issued on December 22, 2020. In the ECtHR, the applicants argued that the Norwegian government (the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy), in issuing new licenses for oil and gas exploration in the Arctic (Barents Sea) that will allow new fossil fuels to market from 2035 and beyond, violated plaintiff’s human rights under European Convention on Human Rights Articles 2 (right to life) and 8 (right to respect for private life and family life and home). They also alleged that the Norwegian government has infringed the Applicants’ rights by failing to adopt necessary and appropriate measures to address the risk of the climate crisis, and failing to declare, describe, and assess total climate effects of the continued and expanded extraction. Lastly, the Applicants claimed that the Norwegian courts failed to adequately assess their claims and thus failed to provide plaintiffs access to an effective domestic remedy under Article 13 of the ECtHR. 

The ECtHR delivered its judgment on October 28, 2025, marking its first procedural climate-rights ruling. The Court first clarified the scope of the case. Emphasizing that the scope was determined by the subject matter of the domestic proceedings, the court limited the decision’s scope to one specific round of petroleum exploration licensing. The broader challenge to Norway’s overall climate or petroleum policy—such as the alleged failure to phase out future oil production—was excluded.

In ruling on the first claim under Article 2 (right to life) and Article 8 (right to private and family life), the Court explained that separate examinations under each article are unnecessary because principles applied in an Article 8 assessment generally overlap with those governing Article 2. The court also observed that the applicants had advanced the same arguments under both provisions. Regarding admissibility under Article 8, the Court, relying on Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland, held that the six individual youth applicants have no standing, while the two NGOs do. In the case of the individuals, the Court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate a sufficiently serious or individualized impact on their life, health, or well-being attributable to climate change. Reaffirming the standard set in KlimaSeniorinnen, the Court stated that a “high-intensity exposure” or a “pressing need for individual protection” is necessary to meet the threshold for victim status. 

In contrast, ruling on the merits for the two NGOs, the Court, for the first time, articulated a procedural obligation under Article 8 in the climate context. States must conduct an adequate, timely, and comprehensive environmental impact assessment (EIA) in good faith and based on the best available science, before authorizing any potentially dangerous activity that may adversely affect individuals’ right to effective protection by State authorities from serious climate-related harms to life, health, well-being, and quality of life. This procedural safeguard, the Court noted, is a key factor in determining whether a State remains within its margin of appreciation. Specifically, for petroleum production projects, an EIA must at minimum: (i) quantify all anticipated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including combustion (scope 3) emissions both within the country and abroad; (ii) assess whether the activity is compatible with national and international obligations to mitigate climate change; and (iii) Ensure informed public consultation at a stage when all options remain open and pollution can still be prevented at source.

Applying these principles to the case, the Court found no violation of Article 8. The challenged decision concerned exploration licenses (stage two of Norway’s three-stage petroleum licensing process). Under Norwegian law, however, extraction (stage three) cannot proceed without a comprehensive EIA. The Court was satisfied that the forthcoming production-stage review will include a full climate-impact assessment—covering combustion emissions and public consultation—before any extraction is authorized. Accordingly, it held that Norway had not breached Article 8 at this stage. 

The Court declared inadmissible the applicants’ complaint under Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Articles 2 and 8, due to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. The claim had not been raised, even in substance, before domestic courts, depriving them of the opportunity to address or remedy the alleged violation. The Court likewise rejected the complaint under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Article 8. For the individual applicants, the claim was incompatible ratione material, as they lacked victim status under Article 8 and no separate Article 2 claim was examined. For the organizational applicants, the Court found the complaint manifestly ill-founded, noting no indication that the domestic judicial review had been insufficient to meet the standards of Article 13. Greenpeace Nordic and Others v. Norway (European Court of Human Rights)

DECISIONS

Australia: Federal Court finds unreasonable delay in processing an application under the Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act

In May 2025, a traditional custodian residing in Murujuga (Burrup Peninsula) brought a case against the Minister for the Environment and Water. The plaintiff alleged that the Minister for the Environment and Water breached its duty by causing an unreasonable delay in determining her application. When the case was filed, almost three and a half years had passed since Ms. Cooper, along with another traditional custodian, had applied for a declaration pursuant to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (Cth) §10. In the original application, the plaintiff and her co-applicant sought protection for the Murujuga area from injury and desecration arising from the extraction of natural gas, the production of ammonia and hydrogen, and the proposed development of a urea plant by various companies.

On August 25, 2025, Justice Stewart of the Federal Court of Australia found that there had been an unreasonable delay and granted the plaintiff the liberty to apply for further relief if the ministry had not determined the original application by September 12, 2025. The court explained that although there is no express provision specifying a certain time limit in deciding on an application under §10, the section is subject to an implied condition of reasonable time. Based on the facts, the court concluded that there was an unreasonable delay with no adequate explanation. However, noting that the decision-making process is moving forward purposefully due to the pressure of this proceeding and that a rigid court-ordered deadline might interfere with proper administrative decision-making if unforeseen issues arise, the plaintiff was granted a liberty to apply for further orders instead of a rigid deadline. Cooper v Minister for Environment and Water (Australia, Federal Court of Australia)

Australia: Tribunal court upheld a construction permit based on energy efficiency assessment

In November 2024, two individuals filed an application opposing a permit granted by the Yarra City Council, as per Section 82 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic). The permit concerned two dwellings, for which the applicants raised issues, including, but not limited to: the shadowing of solar panels on the adjoining property to the south, the removal of vegetation and impact on wildlife, and the proposal’s failure to result in any net benefit or improvement to the area.

On March 6, 2025, Tribunal member Cassandra Rea varied the decision of the Yarra City Council. Noting that “[t]he response to global warming or climate change is one of the key issues identified for this application,” Ms. Rea concluded that there will not be an unreasonable impact on the solar panels on the adjoining property, because based on the number of unaffected panels, the connection of the panels, and the level of solar cell efficiency, the adjoining dwelling will still achieve a reasonable level of solar access. The Tribunal also noted that an alternate plan suggested by the applicants can result in less energy efficiency for the proposed dwelling, and that the Tribunal’s role is to “determine whether the proposal is acceptable, not preferable.” On additional issues, such as whether the proposal would result in an unacceptable amenity impact on an adjoining property or whether the proposal would be appropriate in the neighbourhood based on landscaping concerns, the Tribunal found that the Yarra City Council’s balancing was proper. Healy v Yarra City Council (Australia, Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal)

France: Tribunal court found a company’s advertised goal “carbon neutrality by 2050” to be misleading based on the company’s continued investment in fossil fuels

On March 2, 2022, Greenpeace France, Les Amis de la Terre France, and Notre Affaire à Tous, supported by ClientEarth as a third-party intervener, filed an action before the Paris Judicial Tribunal against TotalEnergies SE and its subsidiary TotalEnergies Électricité et Gaz France. The NGOs sought an injunction and compensation for moral damages, alleging that the companies’ advertising campaign to accompany rebranding misled consumers about TotalEnergies’ environmental performance and climate commitments. 

The applicants argued that the campaign, which promoted TotalEnergies’ “ambition to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050” and its claim to be “a major player in the energy transition,” constituted a misleading commercial practice under Articles L.121-1 et seq. of the Consumer Code and Article L.142-2 of the Environment Code. They claimed these assertions were factually inaccurate, given the company’s ongoing expansion of fossil fuel projects, and that they were likely to mislead consumers by suggesting compatibility with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C target. The applicants also challenged statements concerning the environmental merits of fossil gas and agrofuels, arguing that these claims amounted to greenwashing. 

On October 23, 2025, the Tribunal published its decision that TotalEnergies and its subsidiary had committed misleading commercial practices. The court held that the companies’ dissemination of the messages about their “ambition to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050” and their aspiration to be “a major player in the energy transition” was misleading. The court found that these statements, used in direct connection with the promotion and sale of energy products to consumers, were environmental claims likely to mislead the public as to the company’s actual contribution to the fight against climate change. The Tribunal concluded that TotalEnergies’ reference to “carbon neutrality by 2050” echoed the global scientific and policy framework under the Paris Agreement, yet the company’s continued investment in fossil fuels contradicted that trajectory. Consequently, the claims were deemed likely to alter consumers’ economic behavior. The Tribunal ordered TotalEnergies to withdraw the offending statements from its website within one month, under a penalty of EUR 10,000 per day of delay, and to publish the decision on the homepage of its French commercial website for 180 consecutive days. The court awarded each of the three NGOs EUR 8,000 for moral damages and a total of EUR 15,000 in legal costs. 

By contrast, the Tribunal rejected the plaintiffs’ claims concerning fossil gas and agrofuels, finding that the related communications were informational rather than commercial in nature and therefore fell outside the scope of the Consumer Code. It also dismissed the alternative claims based on ecological damage and breach of the duty of environmental vigilance, holding that no causal link between the advertisements and harm to the atmosphere had been demonstrated. This case marks the first successful greenwashing judgment in Europe against a major oil and gas company for misleading “net zero” claims under consumer protection law, setting a precedent for the interpretation of climate-related advertising in light of EU Directive 2005/29/EC and the forthcoming Directive (EU) 2024/825 on environmental claims. Greenpeace France and Others v. TotalEnergies SE and TotalEnergies Electricité et Gaz France (France, Paris Judicial Tribunal)

NEW CASES

Australia: ASIC files its first civil penalty action against a responsible entity

In October 2025, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) filed a suit against Fiducian Investment Management Services Limited (FIMSL) in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. ASIC alleged that FIMSL breached its duties by engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct about its environmental, social, and governance (ESG) fund. ASIC claims that, unlike the Product Disclosure Statement of the Diversified Social Aspirations Fund (DSAF), which stated in detail how the DSAF would only invest in companies that were considered to be positive for society and the environment, FIMSL invested in a number of coal mining and petroleum-related businesses. ASIC seeks a pecuniary penalty and FIMSL’s disclosure to the public of its wrongdoings under the ASIC Act. This is the fourth greenwashing civil penalty action taken by ASIC, but the first one against a responsible entity. Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Fiducian Investment Management Services Limited (Australia, Supreme Court of New South Wales)

Australia: A public company challenges NOPSEMA’s interpretation of Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 § 571

In August 2025, the Wilderness Society, a public company incorporated in Tasmania, filed a suit against the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA). The Wilderness Society, represented by Equity Generation lawyers, challenged NOPSEMA’s approval of the Environment Plan of Santos, an oil and gas company. The granted Environmental Plan allowed Santos to preserve the wellhead platform it owns after Santos ceases producing from the area this year. The plaintiff argues that under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 (Cth) § 571(2), for such a plan to be granted, the company is required to maintain adequate finance to cover the clean-up costs of the site. The plaintiff is concerned that a narrower reading of the statute will allow companies to evade their cleanup obligations. The case is planned to be heard in April 2026.The Wilderness Society v National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority & ANOR (Australia, Federal Court of Australia)

Brazil:  Federal Prosecution Service sues individuals and legal entities for illegal deforestation in Amazon

In November 2024, the Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) filed a Public Civil Action against individuals Aristoteles Socrates Onassis, Luiz Carlos Corso, Maria do Bom Conselho Ermino da Silva, and a legal entity, Pacheco Comércio de Laticínios e Frios Ltda. This is part of a 195 Public Civil Actions filed by the MFP under the “Amazônia Protege” Project. The project, coordinated by the MPF’s 4th Chamber, aims to repair environmental damage caused by deforestation in the Amazon. The defendants in this case are held responsible for illegal deforestation in polygons equal to or larger than 60 hectares in the states of Amazonas, Pará, Rondônia, and Mato Grosso. These individuals were identified using public databases, including data from the Land Management System (SIGEF), the National Rural Property Certification System (SNCI), and the Terra Legal Program, information from the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR), Infraction Notices, and Embargo Reports.

The lawsuits are grounded on i) the constitutional protection of the environment; and ii) civil liability propter rem for environmental damages arising from deforestation, including climate damages and collective moral damages. The claims explicitly refer to the unauthorized emissions of Greenhouse Gases resulting from illegal deforestation. In this lawsuit, the MPF seeks: i) an order requiring defendants to pay a specific monetary amount corresponding to the material damage resulting from deforestation; ii) an order requiring payment for illegal CO₂ emissions, applying the National Council of Justice (CNJ) Environmental Litigation Protocol, with a valuation of US$ 5.00 per ton of CO₂; iii) an order requiring payment for collective moral damages; iv) restoration of degraded areas, including suspension of their use to allow natural regeneration, and submission of a Degraded Area Recovery Plan (PRAD); and v) an allocation of all compensation funds to federal environmental agencies (IBAMA and ICMBio) operating in the respective states. Federal Prosecution Service (MPF) v. Aristoteles Socrates Onassis; Luiz Carlos Corso; Maria do Bom Conselho Ermino da Silva; and Pacheco Comércio de Laticínios e Frios Ltda. — Environmental Public Civil Action (Illegal Deforestation in Manicoré)  (Brazil, Amazonas Federal Court)