Exxon Mobil Corp. has lost another round in its fight to stop states from pursuing claims that it has deceived investors and the public regarding its products and climate change.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has affirmed a trial court order denying Exxon Mobil’s “anti-SLAPP” motion to dismiss Attorney General Maura Healey’s lawsuit against the company over its climate-related positioning. Exxon Mobil claimed the lawsuit infringed on its free speech right.
The state’s high court rejected the oil giant’s argument that the attorney general’s lawsuit involves its right to petition the government and thus should be dismissed under the state’s “anti-SLAPP” (strategic litigation against public participation) statute.
Exxon and other energy firms also failed in another bid to have a similar case brought by the state of Rhode Island moved to federal court. On May 23, the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld previous rulings that Rhode Island’s climate-based complaint must be heard in state, not federal, court.
The Massachusetts high court agreed with Healey that the anti-SLAPP statute is not enforceable against civil actions brought by law enforcement.
Healey sued the oil giant in 2019, alleging it has been misleading Massachusetts investors about the fossil fuel-driven climate change risks to its business and deceptively advertising its fossil fuel products to consumers. The ruling means the case can proceed.
“Exxon’s repeated attempts to stonewall our lawsuit have been baseless, and this effort was no different,” Healey commented. “We look forward to proceeding with our case and having our day in court to show how Exxon is breaking the law and to put an end to the deception once and for all.”
A state Superior Court had previously also refused to block the attorney general’s lawsuit. It did so on the basis that at least one of the counts in the complaint did not involve petitioning.
The state Supreme Court, however, based its dismissal of Exxon’s motion on an analysis of the law’s history and language that it found makes it clear that the anti-SLAPP law applies to private entities but not to civil enforcement actions by the government.
“There is no suggestion in the legislative history that it was meant to address government enforcement actions. Furthermore, unlike private litigants, government actors’ decisions to prosecute claims are subject to the First Amendment and other constitutional protection,” the court noted.
Energy Firms Lose Challenge to Remand of Baltimore Climate Suit to State Court
Healey’s complaint alleges that Exxon has made factual misstatements and failed to disclose information related to its products and their impact on the climate. Also, her complaint alleges that some of the oil company’s marketing and promotional materials misled consumers and that its so-called “greenwashing” campaigns wrongly implies that Exxon Mobil is taking steps to solve climate change and reduce carbon emissions.
Exxon Mobil has denied the allegations.
Exxon Mobil Loses Bid to Stop States’ Climate Change Probes
The energy firms have been stymied in their efforts to get the climate suits heard in federal courts.
In the Rhode Island case, the federal appeals court was ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court to review the matter of whether the case belongs in federal or state court for a second time. The Supreme Court said the court should review it in light of its own recent ruling concerning a similar case brought by the city of Baltimore (BP p.l.c. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore), a remand and opinion requiring courts of appeals to review all of a defendants’ removal grounds, not just some.
In the wake of the Supreme Court remand in the Baltimore case, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed its April decision that sent Baltimore’s climate change lawsuit against more than 20 energy firms back to state court.
After reviewing all of the oil firms’ arguments for removal to federal court, the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals earlier this week similarly affirmed its remand of the Rhode Island case to state court.
In March, the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said Exxon could not sue Healey in federal court because it was pursuing the same case in Massachusetts state courts.
In addition to suits by Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island and Baltimore, energy firms face climate suits brought by Connecticut, Minnesota, the District of Columbia and Delaware along with the cities of Annapolis, Charleston, New York and Honolulu.
The opinions have dealt only with jurisdiction issues and not with whether the municipalities or states will ultimately fail or succeed in proving their claims under state laws.
Topics Lawsuits Energy Oil Gas Massachusetts
Was this article valuable?
Here are more articles you may enjoy.
Let Good Adjusters, Not Expensive Lawyers, Make the Difference on Claims, CEO Says 
As Rates Rise, Majority of Homeowners Say Insurance Industry Is in Crisis: Survey 
Allstate, Nationwide Post Dramatic Q12024 Homeowners Loss Ratio Drops: S&P 
Three Charged With Helping Agents Cheat on Florida Insurance License Exams 
