France

French financial regulator received complaint against major asset management company for alleged greenwashing 

In October 2024, an international NGO sent out a letter of complaint to the French financial regulator, the Autorité des marchés financiers (“AMF”), alleging misleading marketing practices by a major US-based asset management company. The NGO claims that several funds listed on French financial markets were misleadingly promoted as “sustainable”, despite investing in fossil fuel industries. The NGO has stated that its complaint seeks to ensure greater transparency for investors and alignment of France’s financial markets with the goals of the Paris Agreement.  

French criminal complaint filed against major soda company for alleged greenwashing regarding use of plastic during the Olympic Games 

In November 2024, a French NGO filed a criminal complaint alleging misleading commercial practices by a major soda producing company during the recent summer Olympics in Paris. The NGO alleges that despite the soda company’s publicly stated ambitions to enhance the sustainability of the Olympic Games, millions of plastic drink bottles were needlessly poured into millions of plastic cups, resulting in double use of plastic. The claim was lodged with the Public Prosecutor of Nanterre who will now decide whether to undertake an investigation into these allegations.

French criminal complaint filed against printer manufacturer for alleged planned obsolescence of ink cartridges

In November 2024, a French association filed a complaint with the Public Prosecutor of Paris against a US-based printer manufacturer, accusing the company of restricting the use of reconditioned cartridges and thereby encouraging consumers to purchase new cartridges. The complaint appears to allege that the printer manufacturer has engaged in planned obsolescence, which has been a criminal offence under French law since 2015. The offence is punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment and a fine of EUR 300,000, which may also be increased to up to 5% of the company’s net turnover.

Conviction of French company for violating the 2010 EU Timber Regulation upheld on appeal

On 13 November 2024, the French Court of Appeal of Rennes upheld in full the first instance decision to convict a French timber import company for breaching its duty of due diligence under the 2010 EU Timber Regulation. The company, who is the French leader in timber imports, was convicted in September 2013 and fined EUR 100,000 for importing timber from Brazil without taking the necessary precautions to reduce the risk of illegal timber imports (for more detail, see our previous newsletter). This case highlights the increasing standards placed on companies for due diligence in respect of their supply chains, notwithstanding the delays to the application of the EU Deforestation Regulation which is now expected to apply from the very end of 2025 for large in-scope companies and June 2026 for small and micro enterprises.  

French cement group and individuals to be judged for financing of terrorism and violation of international sanctions

On 16 October 2024, French investigating judges ordered the trial of a French cement group and eight individuals, including former executives, for the financing of terrorism and the violation of international sanctions. The cement group is suspected of having paid several million euros between 2013 and 2014, via a subsidiary, to terrorist groups and intermediaries to maintain its cement plant in Syria. The hearings will be in November and December 2025 (for more detail, see our previous newsletter). 

French State held liable on appeal for wrongful negligence in the fight against air pollution 

On 9 October 2024, the Paris Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the Administrative Tribunal’s finding that the French State had failed to implement adequate measures to prevent excessive pollution of the atmosphere. The claim was brought by parents on their child’s behalf, seeking compensation for their child’s respiratory illnesses, which were allegedly linked to pollution peaks in the Paris region. The Paris Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the existence of a causal link between the French State’s inaction and the child’s respiratory illnesses. The Court awarded compensatory damages specifically for the prejudice of the child (EUR 3,000) and of the parents (EUR 1,000), but refused to compensate the disturbance in living conditions, anxiety, and relocation (the claimants originally requested EUR 219,000 in damages).  

Environmental Judicial Public Interest Agreement (“CJIP”) concluded between the French Public Prosecutor and major waters company

On 10 September 2024, a French court endorsed the environmental Judicial Public Interest Agreement (“CJIP”) signed between the French Public Prosecutor and a local subsidiary of a multinational waters company, which settled an environmental investigation by the French authorities without any declaration of guilt. The company, accused of violations of the French Environmental Code and of consumer deception regarding statements about the “natural” characteristics of a marketed mineral water, agreed to pay a public interest fine of EUR 2 million. The French use of CJIP takes inspiration from the US and UK’s “deferred prosecution agreement” model. 

Italy

Italian Supreme Court to hear jurisdiction dispute in climate litigation against ENI corporation

On 18 February 2025, the Italian Supreme Court will hear an appeal to decide the issue of whether the Italian courts have jurisdiction to hear climate litigation being brought against ENI S.p.A (“ENI”), an Italian state-controlled energy corporation. The proceedings, brought by two NGOs (Greenpeace Italy and ReCommen) and 12 citizens, are the first example of climate litigation being brought against a private corporation in Italy (for more detail, see our previous newsletter). The Italian Supreme Court’s decision will likely be binding on similar jurisdiction disputes in future climate cases. 

Italian Competition Authority announces investigation into sustainability statements on Shein website 

On 25 September 2024, the Italian Competition Authority (“ICA”) announced an investigation into Infinite Styles Services CO. Limited, which operates Shein's Italian website, into whether statements such as "#SHEINTHEKNOW" and "Social Responsibility" might mislead or deceive consumers by portraying Shein’s business and production practices as sustainable. The ICA also noted that Shein’s "evoluSHEIN" collection might potentially mislead consumers about the company’s use of "green" fibres and the recyclability of garments. This investigation is made in the context of Shein’s reported rising greenhouse gas emissions between 2022 and 2023, despite the company’s claims of committing to decarbonization. 

If the ICA investigation finds Shein’s website statements to be misleading, it could potentially become one of the first greenwashing cases in Italy and might lead to further consumer proceedings or class actions. The investigation reflects growing scrutiny of sustainability claims by members of the fast fashion industry.

Italian Administrative Court annuls government approval of gas project due to impact on marine life

On 27 November 2024, the Administrative Court of Lazio annulled a decree of the Italian government approving a gas drilling exploitation project named "Teodorico", located in ‘Delta del Po’ in the Venice area. The proceedings were commenced in 2021 by a group of environmental organisations (including ClientEarth, LIPU-Birdlife, WWF Italy and Greenpeace Italy) who claimed the government had failed to assess the impacts of the project on adjacent marine life and environmental protection zones. The Court upheld the claim, annulled the project’s permit to operate and called for the government to reassess the project’s impact. 

Spain

Iberdrola v. Repsol: greenwashing case 

On 21 November 2024, a hearing took place for Iberdrola’s claim against another major energy company, Repsol, in which it accuses the company of "unfair competition and deceptive advertising through greenwashing." Iberdrola argues that Repsol has misrepresented the sustainability of its operations and products, particularly regarding its campaigns on advanced biofuels, renewable hydrogen, and energy connections. Iberdola is seeking the removal of Repsol's advertising campaign, the prohibition of similar future publications, and the publication of a condemnatory judgement. Repsol’s CEO has responded that the claims are “devoid of any legal basis” and are instead an attempt to limit competition and the growth of Repsol in the electricity and gas market, where both companies are direct competitors. The court ruling is expected by the end of 2024 or early 2025.

Portugal

Supreme Court of Portugal holds that the first climate litigation against Portuguese state can proceed to merits 

On 19 September 2024, the Supreme Court of Portugal upheld an appeal by the plaintiffs in a landmark class action against the Portuguese state, overturning the first instance court’s dismissal of the proceedings on the basis that the claims were insufficient. The class action was filed in November 2023 by a group of NGOs who allege that the Portuguese state’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions fall short of its commitments under the Portuguese Climate Framework Law. The Supreme Court held the plaintiff’s claims were sufficiently clear and the proceedings will now return to the first instance court for a decision on the merits. These proceedings are the first to directly challenge the Portuguese state’s climate change action domestically. The lead NGO has announced that it intends to broaden the claim to also include private sector actors in oil and gas (for more detail, see our previous newsletter).

Europe – Non-EU

Norwegian court rejects appeal against development of three oil and gas fields 

In October 2024, a Norwegian appellate court ruled in favour of the government in a case initiated by environmental activists such as Greenpeace aiming to stop the development of three oil and gas fields. This ruling reverses a lower court's January 2024 decision, which found that Norway's energy ministry had inadequately evaluated the climate impact of future emissions from the fields' oil and gas, known as scope three emissions. The appellate court stated on Monday that it had placed significant importance on democratic considerations, underscoring that the primary responsibility for addressing the climate crisis should rest with the Norwegian parliament and government.

United Kingdom

Court of Session rules North Sea Oil and Gas Approvals Unlawful 

The Court of Session in Edinburgh has declared that consent issued by the former energy secretary for the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields was granted unlawfully, requiring owners to seek new approval from the UK government before extraction can commence. The judicial review decision, brought by environmental groups Uplift and Greenpeace, called for a comprehensive environmental assessment of the fields, especially considering the climate impact of burning extracted fossil fuels. This case was brought in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in R (Finch) v Surrey County Council [2024] UKSC 20, which held that those emissions should be taken into account (see our previous blog post on that case here). Previously, the UK Government conceded that it was an “error of law” to have failed to have taken into account scope 3 emissions from the projects, admitted the approvals for those projects were unlawful, and confirmed it would not defend the challenges. 

UK High Court dismisses human rights judicial review challenge to UK Climate adaptation plan 

On 25 October 2024, the High Court handed down its judgment in R (Friends of the Earth and others) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2024] EWHC 2707 (Admin). The Court rejected a challenge brought against the UK government’s third National Adaptation Programme (the “NAP3”) which sets out the government’s plans for tackling risks flowing from climate change. NAP3 was made pursuant to the UK Secretary of State’s duty under the Climate Change Act to set out adaptation objectives and policies. The claimants’ challenged the NAP3 on four grounds, arguing the SoS had: (a) not construed adaptation objectives in accordance with ECHR rights, under s3 of the Human Rights Act 1998; (b) failed to consider the risks to the NAP3’s delivery; (c) failed to adequately consider the policies’ equality impacts under the Public Sector Equality Duty; and (d) acted contrary to substantive and procedural ECHR rights. 

The High Court rejected all four grounds. On grounds 1 and 2, the Court distinguished between the government’s mitigation objectives (which it described as “hard-edged”) and its adaptation objectives (which attracted a lower standard of review). On the third ground, the court held that even if the process in question had considered the Public Sector Equality Duty to a greater extent, the outcome would have likely been the same. The Court dismissed ground 4 on the basis that the NAP3 human rights implications fell within the government’s margin of appreciation, referring to the KlimaSeniorinnen decision (see our blog). 

Advertising Standards Authority Bans Wizz Air Ad for Misleading Green Claims 

On 27 November 2024, the ASA banned a Wizz Air advertisement which claimed the airline as "one of the greenest choices in air travel" following a review by its Active Ad Monitoring System. The ASA identified the advert as misleading due to its failure to provide clear criteria or supporting data for its environmental claims, therefore impeding consumer verification.

The ASA stressed the importance of data-backed, transparent environmental claims to provide consumers with sufficient information to facilitate informed eco-conscious decisions and prevent greenwashing. Wizz Air defended its green record, citing low CO2 emissions and sustainable fuel investments. However, the ASA concluded that the validity of these points was insufficient to substantiate the advertisement's claims.

Community group commences a claim against water company alleging reduced tourism from sewage pollution 

A community group has commenced a claim against South West Water (“SWW”), alleging that the water company is responsible for sewage pollution in Exmouth and claiming compensation for the impact on local residents and businesses, including tourism in the area. 

This claim is the first community-led action against a water company that has been brought since the UK Supreme Court’s July ruling in which the Court held that the relevant legislative scheme (the Water Industry Act 1991) does not exclude common law claims in nuisance (for more detail on the decision, see our previous newsletter). 

UK Court of Appeal found in favour of Claimants on procedural points in Nigerian oil spill case 

On 6 December 2024, the UK Court of Appeal published its reasons for finding in favour of the Claimants on two procedural points arising out of the ongoing litigation against Shell in respect of oil spills in Nigeria. First, the Court of Appeal upheld orders that the Claimants were entitled to amend their pleadings to refer to a greater number of oil spills and to refer to damage caused by the illegal refining of oil stolen from Shell’s pipelines by third parties. The Court also overturned a finding that the claims should be treated as “global claims” (which would have meant the claims would fail if any contribution by a third party to the loss was established). The Court emphasised that no party or judge could determine how the Claimants’ chose to establish their case. The Court also observed that the lack of equal footing between the parties, in particular the Claimants’ lack of access to information and inability to fund the litigation themselves, was relevant in determining what procedure should govern the proceedings. See our blog post for further analysis. 

Shell settles with Greenpeace in lawsuit over protest 

Greenpeace International and Greenpeace UK have agreed to a settlement with Shell over a protest carried out by the campaign groups in 2023. The settlement comes after Shell threatened to sue Greenpeace for USD $2.1m in damages after a group of Greenpeace campaigners occupied an oil platform off the coast of the Canary Islands for 13 days. As part of the agreed terms, Greenpeace accepts no liability and will pay no damages to Shell. Instead, Greenpeace will donate £300,000 to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. Greenpeace described the case has an “intimidation lawsuit” and a strategic lawsuit against public participation (“SLAPP”), which is a type of case which is brought by wealthy corporations to silence critics. This follows the UK government introducing its first anti-SLAPP law in late 2023, which is expected to be the first step in broader reform to challenge SLAPP. See our previous publications on SLAPPs here.

Jurisdiction battle continues in Dyson labour abuse case (Shannon) 

The Court of Appeal, overturning a High Court decision, ruled that a compensation claim against British appliance manufacturer Dyson regarding alleged labour abuses at a Malaysian factory can be heard in England. The Court of Appeal determined that the original ruling did not give sufficient weight to various factors and therefore it reconsidered the issue of the appropriate forum for itself. A detailed analysis of the decision can be found in our blog post here. In its decision, the Court noted that where there are allegations of very serious human rights abuses, there is a particular need to ensure equality of arms in the conduct of litigation in order to ensure that justice is served. 

Supreme Court upholds judicial review challenge against regulator of landfill site

The Supreme Court, overturning a Court of Appeal decision, has ruled that a claimant can bring a legal challenge against public regulators for failing to prevent noxious scents from a landfill site. The claimant had chosen to bring a claim against the public regulators, as opposed to the owner of the landfill site, arguing that relevant regulatory bodies had acted unlawfully by failing to set appropriate emissions limits for the site. It held the Court of Appeal was wrong to reject the judicial review claim because the claimant had alternative remedies, emphasising that a distinct claim of either private prosecution or private nuisance were neither adequate or alternative remedies for the relief sought under a judicial review. The claimant had a right to pursue a remedy against the regulator and ensure the authority fulfilled their public law duties, as opposed to merely seeking an end to the concerned behaviour from the landfill site. This unanimous decision clarified judicial review's role as a supervisory mechanism, tasked with assessing the legality of a public authority's action. This case is critical in demonstrating the distinct nature of judicial review in holding regulators and public bodies to account for failure to fulfil their legal duties.

UK court quashes planning permission for new Cumbrian coal mine

On 13 September 2024, proposals to build the first new coal mine in the UK in more than 30 years were quashed by the High Court. Holgate J found that the Government violated the Environmental Impact Assessment regulations by inadequately assessing the greenhouse gas emissions when granting planning permission for the site near Whitehaven in Cumbria. In light of the Supreme Court decision in Finch (see our previous blog post on that case here), the UK government had dropped its opposition to the challenges (but the developer continued to defend them). The High Court found that the Secretary of State’s decision that the proposal would have a neutral or beneficial effect on global greenhouse gas emissions was found to be "legally flawed". It rejected arguments that Whitehaven coal would substitute US coal, thus not increasing emissions. Instead, the Court found that where a substitutionary effect is being claimed, it is for the developer to produce full information on those two effects which it claimed balanced each other out (or resulted in some offset). The judgment highlights the significant role of legal frameworks in holding decision-makers accountable to climate commitments. 

New Competition Proceedings to be Brought Against Six UK Water Companies

A pre-action letter has been sent to six British water and sewerage companies, outlining new opt-out collective competition claims. The claims are based on alleged misreporting of pollution incidents, purportedly leading to an abuse of dominant market position in violation of competition law. Professor Carolyn Roberts is initiating the claims on behalf of up to one million non-household customers, with damages sought amounting to up to £510 million. Professor Roberts alleges that this non-household claim is materially similar to a prior class action filed in August 2023 by Professor Roberts, which was brought against the same six companies on behalf of household customers. The household case is currently awaiting a certification decision from the Competition Appeal Tribunal.

United States of America

PFAS Litigation

Towards the end of 2024, and into 2025, there was a clear increase in litigation against major companies concerning per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”). A recent class action filed in Pennsylvania targets an international candy company for allegedly using PFAS chemicals in the packaging of several of the company’s products and not disclosing this to consumers. 

Additionally, a class action was filed in a Californian District Court against a major technology manufacturer arguing that the company misled consumers to believe that their smart watches advanced health even though they allegedly contained excessive levels of PFAS chemicals.

On 21 January 2025, a Georgia county filed a complaint in state court against several large chemical and carpet manufacturers, alleging the defendants have known for decades that the PFAS substances they manufacture and use are toxic but hid this information from the public. The complaint argues these companies continued to dump contaminated waste into the county’s landfills and sewer systems, causing a "public-health crisis" across the northwestern part of the state. The plaintiff seeks compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages. In December 2024, another Georgia county filed a similar lawsuit in state court with overlapping defendants, arguing their PFAS pollution has negatively impacted residents’ health as PFAS contamination “suppress[es] their immune systems and trigger[s] debilitating and fatal illnesses.”

On 7 January 2025, several cookware companies sued the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, challenging the constitutionality of a new law banning the sale or distribution of 11 categories of products, including cookware, that contain intentionally added PFAS. Plaintiffs argue the law is too disruptive to interstate commerce, and that fluoropolymers, one of the chemicals banned by the law and used in non-stick coatings, are fundamentally different from PFAS.

Pollution Litigation

The State of New York has filed a notice to appeal the November dismissal of the state’s case against an international beverage company for alleged polluting the Buffalo River with plastic. In November, a chemical company settled with the Illinois Attorney General’s Office for damage allegedly caused by hydrogen fluoride emissions from the company’s chemical distribution facility. Also in November, fifteen individuals filed suit in a Californian District Court against their employer, a large landfill company, claiming that management intentionally diverted liquid wastewater polluted with toxins into the Napa River. You can read more information about these cases in our December bulletin here. 

On 8 January 2025, two major U.S. airlines and a public seaport agency filed a joint reply brief in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. They are seeking an interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit of the district court’s order denying the companies’ motion to dismiss a class action suit. The 2023 suit alleges that the companies’ air traffic has caused significant air pollution affecting approximately 300,000 residents living in the “Contamination Zone.” The defendants contend that the complaint filed by residents near Seattle-Tacoma International Airport raises federal jurisdictional and preemption issues because the suit deals with flight paths and pollution, which are undisputably regulated by federal aviation and environmental agencies. Therefore, they request permission to file an interlocutory appeal to address these issues with the Ninth Circuit.

On 9 January 2025, an environmental group sued a U.S. construction company in the U.S District Court for the Western District of Washington under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), alleging the company violated its environmental permits by unlawfully discharging polluted stormwater into a nearby river and bay in the Seattle area. The complaint claims that these discharges contributed to causing the waterways to fall below the acceptable water quality as set forth by EPA’s water quality standards and in violation of the permit administered by Washington’s Department of Ecology.  The plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and the imposition of civil penalties.

On 17 December 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed a proposed consent decree with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that would require a U.S. energy company to pay US$8 million in civil penalties for its involvement in a 2018 fracked gas explosion in southeastern Ohio, which leaked over 60,000 tons of methane gases—one of the most harmful GHGs—into the atmosphere. Under the consent decree, the company is required to internally audit its drilling operations, undertake other compliance efforts, and implement emissions mitigation plans to reduce its methane emissions by more than 20,000 tons. On 20 December 2024, the proposed decree was published in the Federal Register and will remain open for a 30-day period for public comment.  

Also in December, a federal judge in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey approved the EPA and DOJ’s $150 million consent decree with 82 companies bearing responsibility for the clean-up of New Jersey’s Lower Passaic River under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), finding that the companies caused the leakage of contaminates into the river water and riverbed, posing significant risks to human health. Ultimately, the court found the EPA and DOJ’s breakdown to be “fair and reasonable,” even with one company being found to have significant liability compared to other companies.

Climate Change Litigation

On 16 December 2024, environmental groups sued the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) in state court, alleging that the state’s new amendments to its low carbon fuel standard program will only increase the expansion of factory farms and exacerbate environmental degradation in the San Joaquin Valley.

In the New Year, SCOTUS refused to intervene in climate change litigation brought by state and local governments against fossil fuel companies, dismissing a request by energy companies to overturn a Hawai’i Supreme Court decision in a case initiated by both the city and county of Honolulu. This decision continues a trend of SCOTUS’s refusal to shift climate litigation cases to federal jurisdiction, reinforcing the role of state courts in adjudicating them.

That same month, several energy, oil, and gas companies petitioned the Supreme Court of California to review a lower court’s decision allowing climate change suits against them to proceed. The lawsuits filed by California and local governments allege that the companies deceived people about the harms of fossil fuels products and seek damages for climate change impacts. Petitioners argue that California’s courts do not have jurisdiction over claims stemming from global fossil fuel use and that the lower court ruling threatens immense liability for any business with ties to California that contribute to global GHG emissions.     

Greenwashing Litigation and Enforcement

There were several developments in greenwashing litigation this quarter. On 5 November 2024, an Illinois District Court granted a motion to dismiss filed by a water bottle distributor in a case alleging that the distributor had violated state consumer fraud statutes by labeling one of its spring water bottle lines as “natural”, despite the bottles containing microplastics that can enter into the water. A New York District Court had previously reversed its prior ruling, which had partially denied a bottled water distributor’s motion to dismiss claims alleging it had falsely advertised one of its bottled water lines as “carbon neutral”.  The November decision dismissed the claims in full but granted plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. Also in November, Los Angeles County filed a suit in California state court against an international beverage company, alleging that the company misled the public about the recyclability of their plastic bottles by failing to disclose the environmental impact of their plastic bottles. You can read more about these developments in our December bulletin here.

In November 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) settled charges against an investment adviser for making misleading statements about its ESG considerations. In October, the SEC charged an asset management firm with making misrepresentations about the firm’s ESG-considerations in certain investment funds and failure to adopt written policies and procedures to comply with the Advisers Act. Without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, the investment adviser agreed to a cease-and-desist order and censure and to pay a $4 million civil penalty to settle the charges. 

On 6 January 2025, a major oil corporation filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against the California attorney general and five environmental NGOs for claims including business disparagement, defamation, and tortious interference with contract. The company alleges, inter alia, that the defendants’ accusations that it deceived the public about the effectiveness of its plastics advanced recycling efforts damaged the company’s reputation and harmed its contracts with existing and potential customers. The plaintiff seeks declaratory relief, equitable relief, and damages.

On 6 January 2025, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona certified a class action suit against an American electric vehicle battery manufacturer for securities fraud. The plaintiffs allege that the company misled shareholders by overstating its capability to produce electric trucks, particularly a zero-emissions tractor trailer truck, causing investors significant losses.

Also this January, a judge has dismissed New York City's lawsuit seeking to hold Exxon Mobil, BP and Shell liable for misleading the public about their products, and their commitment to renewable energy and fighting climate change. The allegations centred on claims that that the companies were “greenwashing” their products at petrol stations by failing to state their contribution to climate change. The judge found no proof the oil companies conducted "greenwashing" campaigns, including statements about clean energy and alternative energy, to boost sales of fossil fuel products in the city.

Oil and Gas Litigation 

On 30 December 2024, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and an oil and gas industry trade group sued the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources in the Vermont District Court to constitutionally challenge a newly enacted law that requires fossil fuel companies to pay for a share of damages caused by climate change. The plaintiffs are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.

A North Carolina town has sued an electric utility company, alleging that the company participated in a decades-long climate deception campaign to conceal the dangers of fossil fuel emissions. In November, the State of Maine sued a group of major oil and gas companies, alleging the corporations engaged in a climate disinformation campaign. In October, a similar suit was filed in Oregon against several gas and oil companies in state court, arguing that the corporations concealed for decades the dangers and catastrophic climate impacts caused by their fossil fuel products. In September, the Attorney General for California and four environmental NGOs separately sued a major oil corporation in state court, arguing that the company knowingly misled the public about the impacts of fossil-fuel based plastic products and promoted individualized recycling as a solution for the mounting plastic waste crisis. 

On 16 October 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court denied emergency requests from 28 different states, several industry groups, and energy companies to stay enforcement of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) rule to regulate and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants (“GHG Emissions Rule”) while it is under challenge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The GHG Emissions Rule, starting in 2032, requires that certain coal-fired and new gas-fired power plants meet a carbon dioxide emission standard equivalent to the implementation of a carbon capture and storage system and running it at 90% efficiency. Power plants not expected to meet this standard must plan to cease operations before 2039. That same month, a California state court judge denied a motion to dismiss lawsuits filed by the California Attorney General and local governmental entities against major oil and gas companies for alleged misrepresentations and deception campaigns about the climate impacts of fossil fuel products. The state court rejected the defendants’ lack of personal jurisdiction arguments, finding that the defendants’ alleged conduct and plaintiffs’ claimed injuries took place in California. 

On 13 January 2025, members of a Native American tribe filed a brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, requesting permission to intervene in a lawsuit filed by a pipeline company, challenging the U.S. Department of the Interior’s (“DOI”) vacation of a reduced penalty for operating a crude oil pipeline that crossed land with an expired Right-of-Way easement. The tribes assert that they should be permitted the right to intervene in the proceeding because they are all allottee landowners who have direct ownership interest in the land where the pipeline is located, claiming that the U.S. DOI is not adequately representing their interests in the proceeding.

On 26 December 2024, New York enacted a law that will require large oil, gas, and coal companies to pay US $75 billion over 25 years for climate change adaptation. Specifically, the Climate Change Superfund Act shifts some of the recovery and adaptation costs of climate change to fossil fuel companies, requiring producers and refiners that emitted more than 1 billion tons of GHGs over 18 years to pay a rate of US $3 billion per year that will be used to help pay for infrastructure upgrades, extreme weather response, cooling systems and other climate-related investments. Earlier last year, Vermont enacted similar legislation that applies this model to GHG emitters. 

Anti-ESG Litigation

On 27 November 2024, eleven states filed suit in the Texan District Court against a group of global investment firms for alleged antitrust violations. In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants have substantial stockholdings in every domestic coal producer in the U.S. and leverage their significant shareholdings and collective power “to pressure the major coal producers to reduce production of coal”—reducing competition and raising costs for consumers in violation of the Clayton Act. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, damages, restitution, and civil penalties. 

On 11 December 2024, a federal judge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated an SEC order approving an American stock exchange’s requirement that listed companies provide a demographic breakdown of their board of directors and requiring that the board members meet specific diversity criteria. The Court stated that the rule was inconsistent with the “applications of the concept of just and equitable principles of trade” as provided by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Court further noted that the Act’s disclosure requirements aim to eliminate fraudulent and speculative behaviour and that “[i]t is not unethical for a company to decline to disclose information about the racial, gender, and LGTBQ+ characteristics of its directors.” 

On 16 January 2025, a group of states sued the EPA in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, challenging an agency rule that imposes fees on oil and gas companies whose methane emissions exceed certain thresholds per year. The states claim that this exceeds the federal agency’s authority. The states’ challenge was consolidated with several other cases filed by petroleum industry groups.

Also in January, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled that a major U.S. airline violated federal law by encouraging environmentally and socially responsible investing in its 401(k) plan. The 70-page decision stated that the airline breached its duty of loyalty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) by allowing the investment manager overseeing the accounts to prioritize ESG investment goals over the financial interests of their employees’ retirement plans. Conversely, the judge did not find a breach of ERISA’s duty of prudence, as the defendants’ monitoring practices over the investment manager followed prevailing standards among other large plan fiduciaries. You can find more information about the suit in our July 2023 disputes bulletin here.

A Californian District Court has denied a motion for summary judgment filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups, which argued that California’s climate disclosure laws violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by compelling speech. The District Court held that additional factual developments were required to determine whether the disclosure requirements violate the First Amendment. The disclosure laws were not stayed pending the litigation, and initial disclosures remain due in 2026 as scheduled. For more information, see our updated client bulletin. 

On 17 January 2025, the Tennessee Attorney General announced a settlement with a multinational investment company after filing a lawsuit in December 2023 alleging the company misled consumers in how ESG played a role in its investment strategies. As part of the settlement, the company agreed to, among other things, improve transparency (including proxy voting disclosures), hire a third-party auditor for compliance monitoring, and commit to casting shareholder votes “solely to further the financial interests of investors” for funds with financial performance investment objectives. The settlement admits no wrongdoing and reserves the right for Tennessee to refile claims in the event of non-compliance.

On 23 January 2025, the Texas attorney general  issued a letter, cosigned by attorneys general of nine other states, to several investment firms, threatening legal action against them for their diversity and environmental policies. In the weeks after the November 2024 U.S. presidential election, all firms targeted by this letter announced they would withdrawal from climate-investment coalitions. Although this is acknowledged in the AG’s letter, to the letter nevertheless points out examples where the targeted investment firms have continued to make statements in support of net zero-emissions shareholders resolutions. In addition to this letter, in Texas, several asset managers have been accused of attempting to manipulate the market by encouraging climate-focused investments. Some asset managers have been placed on lists for potential divestment for boycotting certain energy investments.

U.S. Federal Agency Actions

U.S. federal agencies have also been busy with various disputes in recent months. On 12 December 2024, the Yurok Tribe and two NGOs filed a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to challenge the agency’s 2024 rule on Decabromodiphenyl Ether (“decaBDE”) and Phenol, Isopropylated Phosphate (“PIP”). In November 2024, the EPA announced a settlement with a medical equipment supplier to resolve claims the company violated air emissions standards. That same month, the EPA also announced separate settlements with a cast iron soil pipe manufacturer and the City of Salem, Virginia for Clean Air Act violations. You can read more information about these settlements in our December bulletin here. 

On 16 December 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) declined to review a case brought by several states challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA”) authority to allow California to set its own greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions standards for vehicles. However, on 13 December 2024, SCOTUS granted the request to review a case brought by various fuel industry groups – who also separately challenged the California waiver. Both of these cases were consolidated on appeal originally, and in a joint decision on both cases issued in April 2024, the D.C. Circuit upheld the EPA's waiver for California, concluding that (1) the fuel industry groups did not have standing altogether for its claims because their alleged injuries could not be redressed; and (2) the states did not have standing for some claims and that others were meritless. By letting the D.C. Circuit’s decision stand as to the merits of the waiver itself, SCOTUS preserves the existing framework, affirming California’s ability to implement its stringent vehicle-emissions standards. However, SCOTUS is still set to decide whether the fuel industry groups have standing or not to challenge the waiver.

Asia 

Supreme Court of India upholds constitutional right to pollution-free environment

On 23 October 2024, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed the fundamental right of all citizens to live in a pollution-free environment under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Court held that Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, and that stubble burning (which was the subject of the complaint) violates this provision rather than being merely a breach of law. The Court was critical of both state and central governments in failing to address and reduce air pollution, and sought stricter actions from the governments to prosecute under the Environment Protection Act, 1986. 

Australia

Continuing regulatory focus on greenwashing 

In November 2024, the Australian Securities & Investments Commission (“ASIC”) announced its enforcement priorities for 2025, including a focus on greenwashing and misleading conduct involving ESG claims. ASIC Deputy Chair Sarah Court indicated that the priorities were selected to focus on protecting customers from financial harm in light of ongoing cost of living pressures. Reflecting the uptick in enforcement action covered in our January 2024, May 2024 and September 2024 bulletins, ASIC reported that its new investigations increased by 25 percent in 2024 (as compared to 2023), while new civil proceedings increased by 23 per cent.

Further outcomes in claims brought by ASIC

In September 2024, the Federal Court ordered Vanguard Investments Australia (“Vanguard”) to pay a $12.9 million penalty following its judgment in the civil penalty proceedings brought by ASIC. The Court found that Vanguard made misleading claims about certain 'ESG screens' that were being applied to investments in its Vanguard Ethically Conscious Global Aggregate Bond Index Fund (covered in our May 2024 ESG Bulletin). The penalty judgment follows the approval of the earlier settlement in ASIC's proceedings against Mercer Superannuation (Australia) Ltd (“Mercer”) (covered in our September 2024 update). As with Mercer, the Court also approved orders requiring Vanguard to publish an adverse publicity notice on its website for 12 months (twice as long as the duration of the adverse publicity orders in Mercer).

Separately, on 17 December 2024, the Federal Court held a hearing to determine the appropriate penalty for the trustee of a superannuation fund in ASIC enforcement proceedings in relation to misleading representations concerning the fund's ESG-related investment exclusions and restrictions. The penalty hearing follows an earlier judgment on liability in June 2024, as covered in our September 2024 ESG Bulletin.

Scrutiny on green claims in the aviation sector

In October 2024, the Environmental Defenders Office (“EDO”) on behalf of Climate Integrity (an NGO advocating for corporate Australia’s transition to net zero) submitted a complaint to the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission (“ACCC”)  in relation to statements by Qantas Airways Limited (“Qantas”) about sustainability and net zero plans. Climate Integrity requested that the ACCC investigate whether the statements were misleading or deceptive under the Australian Consumer Law. 

Mandatory climate-related financial disclosure requirements legislated

In parallel with the above enforcement trends and consistent with legislative developments in other jurisdictions, the Australian Parliament passed legislation to introduce the country's first mandatory climate-related financial disclosure regime. As part of the initial transition to the new compulsory reporting regime, the legislation has introduced a temporary moratorium on civil claims by private litigants regarding disclosures made in sustainability reports regarding scope 3 GHG emissions, scenario analysis and transition plans, from 1 January 2025 until 31 December 2027. 

However, the stay on private litigation does not apply to any action or proceeding that may be brought by ASIC or a criminal action against a reporting entity. 

For more information on the new reporting regime, see this article by Allens. 

Climate litigation trends continue to evolve

In December 2024, the Victorian Bar published its annual review of Australian climate litigation trends. The review identified 43 climate change litigation cases (excluding planning related cases) across 11 practice areas including human rights, greenwashing (both regulatory and non-regulatory), and criminal law. Judicial and merits review cases have remained dominant in 2024, with greenwashing claims the next largest claim type. Non-governmental organisations and private individuals were the most frequent litigants and relief remains focused on declarations and injunctions. Notably and whilst widely projected, 2024 did not see a transition from 'first wave' cases (government accountability cases) to 'third wave' cases (corporate responsibility cases). 

Reflecting these broader trends, the Federal Court has heard arguments in proceedings commenced by the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility (“ACCR”) against a major energy company regarding alleged misleading or deceptive conduct over public representations concerning its emissions reduction plans. Closing submissions were concluded on 6 December 2024. The ACCR is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, including an injunction that the respondent issue a corrective statement regarding the environmental impacts of its operations. 

Federal Government's response to the statutory review of the Modern Slavery Act 2018 and appointment of Australia's first national Anti-Slavery Commissioner

On 4 December 2024, the Federal Government released its much anticipated response to the report of the statutory review of the Modern Slavery Act 2018 (Cth). In its response, the Government agrees with the need to strengthen the compliance and enforcement framework in the Modern Slavery Act and to align the Act with regulatory best practice. Specifically, the Government has agreed to:

• (in principle and in part) the introduction of a penalty regime for companies that fail to report on their actions to address modern slavery or that knowingly publish false information; and 
• (in principle) introduce declarations by the Minister or the new Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner (see further below) of locations, industries, and products known to be high risk for modern slavery and to publish an annual list of companies that have reported under the Act. 

While the details of any future penalty regime are still to be revealed, the Attorney-General's Department (“AGD”) has indicated that it will consult with stakeholders on the introduction and operation of civil penalties for failing to submit a modern slavery statement (“MSS”), providing false information in a MSS, and failing to comply with a request for specified remedial action.

Judicial Review highlights growing tensions in offshore exploration governance

Environmental organizations have launched a judicial review to challenge the environmental authorisation granted to TGS Geophysical Company ("TGS") to conduct 3D seismic survey activities off South Africa’s Western and Northern Cape coasts. This case reflects the broader and escalating tensions between the petroleum industry, government regulators, and civil society in South Africa. The Applicants argue that the Environmental Impact Assessment ("EIA") failed to adequately assess key ecological risks including disruption to marine ecosystems and harm biodiversity. Coastal communities, particularly small-scale fishers, are among those most affected. While gas is positioned as a transitional fuel in South Africa’s just energy transition, the judicial review highlights deeper conflicts over the pace and methods of energy development. It also illustrates the consequences of an unclear and fragmented legislative framework for oil and gas exploration. The hearing and judgment are awaited.

First youth-led climate litigation successfully challenges new coal- power stations

In African Climate Alliance and 2 Others v The Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and 4 Others [2024] ZAGPPHC 1271, a constitutional challenge was brought against the South African government’s decision to procure an additional 1500 megawatts of new coal-fired power stations against the backdrop of South Africa's recent energy crisis. The Court found that the Government was unable to show appropriate consideration had been given to the right to a clean and healthy environment and the constitutional rights of children and, on that basis, determined the impugned decisions to be reviewable. Ultimately, the Court set aside the above decisions on the basis that they were inconsistent with the Constitution, were unlawful and invalid. It is unclear if the Government intends to appeal the decision, which the Court handed down on 4 December 2024.