October, 25 2019, 12:00am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Amanda Kistler, Communications Director, CIEL: akistler@ciel.org, +001.202.742.5832
ExxonMobil Faces Another Lawsuit: Massachusetts Sues for Climate Deception
Boston, MA
Today, Massachusetts became the second state to sue ExxonMobil for misleading investors about climate change and the first to sue ExxonMobil for deceiving consumers. The lawsuit, filed by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, claims that the company knowingly deceived investors and consumers about the risks of climate change to its business and the public.
"The implications of this case extend far beyond the borders of Massachusetts," says Carroll Muffett, President of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). "For the first time Exxon is being sued for both misleading investors and deceiving consumers. Dozens of other US states, as well as countries around the world, have consumer protection laws similar to the act under which Massachusetts is suing ExxonMobil. This case will be a testing ground for similar cases to hold the company accountable for climate deception moving forward, and we can expect many more cases to come."
The case comes two days after a historic trial against Exxon began in New York and three years after the Massachusetts Attorney General filed a Civil Investigative Demand requesting documents related to Exxon's early knowledge of and actions on climate change. Exxon made numerous attempts to stop today's lawsuit from being filed beginning with suing the Massachusetts Attorney General and just last week trying to delay the case until after the conclusion of New York's case against the company, a request that was denied by a judge earlier today.
Echoing what CIEL has said before, the MA Attorney General's suit draws parallels between Exxon's deception and the conduct of the tobacco industry, even going so far as to highlight the similarities of misleading industry advertisements insinuating that their products are greener or healthier even though fossil fuel use and smoking cigarettes are both harmful to human health. What is clear, is that for decades Exxon has known that its products contribute to climate change, even the ones that were deemed more efficient. The case details a history that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez summed up at a Congressional Hearing of the Oversight & Reform Committee yesterday: "So they knew."
The MA Attorney General case is trying to hold the company liable under the state's Consumer Protection Act, which protects the people of Massachusetts from a company's deceptive practices. Though the company is headquartered in Texas, Massachusetts courts have previously found that they have jurisdiction due to the connections Exxon has to the state, including through its standard franchising agreements, through which Exxon controls the advertisements of its products in the state. This complaint lays out Exxon's years of knowledge about its products' impacts on climate change, its attempts to undermine climate action, and its deception, including through misleading advertisements about its products and its actions, and greenwashing efforts designed to deceive Massachusetts consumers.
"The fact that courts recognize jurisdiction based on Exxon's standard franchise agreement sets a precedent that could be used in nearly every state where Exxon has used that standard agreement," says Muffett.
The case draws on evidence of Exxon's long history of climate denial unearthed by CIEL, Inside Climate News, and the Los Angeles Times, among others. In 2017, CIEL releasedSmoke & Fumes: The Legal and Evidentiary Basis for Holding Big Oil Accountable for the Climate Crisis, which further built out the legal basis for holding oil companies legally accountable for their early knowledge of climate change and campaigns to mislead the public.
Since 1989, the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) has worked to strengthen and use international law and institutions to protect the environment, promote human health, and ensure a just and sustainable society.
LATEST NEWS
'We Will Organize Those People,' Anti-Poverty Crusader William Barber Says of Millions Set to Lose Medicaid
"They will not kill us and our communities without a fight."
Jul 02, 2025
Armed with 51 caskets and a new federal analysis, faith leaders and people who would be directly impacted by U.S. President Donald Trump's so-called Big Beautiful Bill got arrested protesting in Washington, D.C. this week and pledged to organize the millions of Americans set to lose their health insurance under the package.
Citing Capitol Police, The Hill reported Monday that "a total of 38 protestors were arrested, including 24 detained at the intersection of First and East Capitol streets northeast and another 14 arrested in the Capitol Rotunda. Those taken into custody were charged with crowding, obstructing, and incommoding."
The "Moral Monday" action was organized because of the "dangerous and deadly cuts" in the budget reconciliation package, which U.S. Senate Republicans—with help from Vice President JD Vance—sent to the House of Representatives Tuesday and which the lower chamber took up for consideration Wednesday.
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the megabill would result in an estimated 17 million Americans becoming uninsured over the next decade: 11.8 million due to the Medicaid cuts, 4.2 million people due to expiring Affordable Care Act tax credits, and another 1 million due to other policies.
"This is policy violence. This is policy murder," Bishop William Barber said at Monday's action, which began outside the U.S. Supreme Court followed by a march to the Capitol. "That's why we brought these caskets today—because in the first year of this bill, as it is, the estimates are that 51,000 people will die."
"If you know that, and still pass it, that's not a mistake," added Barber, noting that Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.)—one of three Republican senators who ultimately opposed the bill—had said before the vote that his party was making a mistake on healthcare.
Moral Mondays originated in Tillis' state a dozen years ago, to protest North Carolina Republicans' state-level policymaking, led by Barber, who is not only a bishop but also president of the organization Repairers of the Breach and co-chair of the Poor People's Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival.
This past Monday, Barber vowed that if federal lawmakers kick millions of Americans off their healthcare with this megabill, "we will organize those people," according to Sarah Anderson of the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS).
In partnership with IPS and the Economic Policy Institute, Repairers of the Breach on Monday published The High Moral Stakes of Budget Reconciliation fact sheet, which examines the version of the budget bill previously passed by the House. The document highlights cuts to health coverage, funding for rural hospitals, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
The fact sheet also points out that while slashing programs for the poor, the bill would give tax breaks to wealthy individuals and corporations, plus billions of dollars to the Pentagon and Trump's mass deportation effort.
"Instead of inflicting policy violence on the most vulnerable, Congress should harness America's abundant wealth to create a moral economy that works for all of us," the publication asserts. "By fairly taxing the wealthy and big corporations, reducing our bloated military budget, and demilitarizing immigration policy, we could free up more than enough public funds to ensure we can all survive and thrive."
"As our country approaches its 250th anniversary," it concludes, "we have no excuse for not investing our national resources in ways that reflect our Constitutional values: to establish justice, domestic tranquility, real security, and the general welfare for all."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Asylum Crackdown Dealt Major Blow in 'Hugely Important' Court Ruling
"Nothing in the Constitution grants the president the sweeping authority asserted," wrote a U.S. district judge.
Jul 02, 2025
President Donald Trump's crackdown on asylum-seekers was dealt a major blow on Wednesday when U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss ruled that the administration had vastly overstepped its legal authority with an executive order issued on the first day of his second term.
Politico reports that Moss found that Trump's January 20 executive order slapping new restrictions on asylum-seekers even if they arrive at proper points of entry exceeded his powers as outlined by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which the judge described as containing the "sole and exclusive" procedure for properly deporting undocumented immigrants. In fact, Moss went so far as to say that Trump had established "an alternative immigration system" with his asylum order.
Moss—appointed to the district court in Washington, D.C. by former President Barack Obama—also didn't buy the administration's rationale that such drastic measures were necessary due to the emergency of an "invasion" at the southern border.
"Nothing in the INA or the Constitution grants the president... the sweeping authority asserted in the proclamation and implementing guidance," the judge wrote. "An appeal to necessity cannot fill that void."
Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union who argued the case in court, praised the ruling as "a hugely important decision" that will "save the lives of families fleeing grave danger" and "reaffirms that the president cannot ignore the laws Congress has passed and the most basic premise of our country's separation of powers."
The original Trump order not only barred asylum-seekers who showed up at the border outside the proper points of entry, but also mandated that asylum-seekers at the points of entry provide additional documentation beyond what is required by law, including medical histories and information about potential past criminal records.
Moss' order is not going into effect immediately as he is giving the administration two weeks to prepare an appeal.
Keep ReadingShow Less
House Dems Form Procedural 'Conga Line' to Block Medicaid and SNAP Cuts
"We're here to help people, not screw people over!" said Rep. Jim McGovern.
Jul 02, 2025
Democrats in the House of Representatives on Wednesday banded together in an attempt to gum up the works to block House Republicans from passing their massive budget bill that includes historic and devastating cuts to both Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program known as SNAP.
One by one, House Democrats moved in what Punchbowl News reporter Jake Sherman described as a "conga line" to make the exact same request for unanimous consent "to amend the rule to make an order the amendment at the desk that protects against any cuts to Medicaid and SNAP." Each time a Democrat would make the request, Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.), holding the gavel in the chamber, informed them that "the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained."
At one point, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) grew frustrated with his Republican colleagues for their insistence on passing the budget bill, which he noted would significantly cut taxes for the richest Americans while decimating safety net programs designed to help poor and working class Americans.
"We're here to help people, not screw people over!" McGovern fumed.
As of this writing, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R.La.) remained in his office, according to Punchbowlreporting, an apparent signal that a floor vote for Wednesday remained up in the air.
The United States Senate on Tuesday passed a budget package by the slimmest of margins that the Congressional Budget Office has estimated would slash spending on Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program by more than $1 trillion over a ten-year-period and would slash SNAP spending by more than $250 billion over the same period.
Previous polling has shown that the budget package is broadly unpopular and a new poll from Data for Progress released Wednesday found that the Republican plan grows more unpopular the more voters learn about its provisions. In particular, voters expressed significant concern about the plan's impact on the national debt, cuts to CHIP and Medicaid, and attacks on clean energy programs.
Over 100 @HouseDemocrats lined up to ask for "unanimous consent to amend the rule and make in order the amendment at the desk that protects against any cuts to Medicaid & SNAP" pic.twitter.com/r5ktS9Uj0K
— Jahana Hayes (@RepJahanaHayes) July 2, 2025
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular