Statement from Attorney General Bonta on U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision Declining to Accept an Original Action Challenging States’ Climate Deception Lawsuits

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today released the following statement after the United States Supreme Court ruled in Alabama v. California that it would not entertain an original action challenging California and four other States’ civil enforcement actions against oil and gas companies for deceptive conduct. 

“We are pleased with the Court’s decision to deny the original action motion from Alabama and other states,” said Attorney General Bonta. “California is suing oil and gas companies for engaging in a decades-long campaign to deceive Californians about the climate harms of their products in our state. We will continue to do our part to ensure that those who break our laws and harm our residents are held accountable under state law and are looking forward to continuing to litigate this case in state court.” 

BACKGROUND

In September of 2023, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced his lawsuit against five of the largest oil and gas companies in the world — Exxon Mobil, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and BP — and the American Petroleum Institute (API) for allegedly engaging in a decades-long campaign of deception that created statewide climate change-related harms in California. Last June, the Attorney General amended his complaint to include the disgorgement remedy provided by AB 1366 (Maienschein, 2023), which would require the defendants to give up the profits gained through their illegal conduct.

Last May, Alabama, along with 18 other Republican-led states, filed a motion asking the U.S. Supreme Court to entertain a lawsuit seeking to prevent five states – California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Rhode Island – from pursuing climate-deception lawsuits against major energy companies in their respective state courts. In response, California and the other defendant states contended that an original action—meaning a suit heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in the first instance—was not warranted here, in part because their legal actions against the companies are an exercise of traditional state authority to protect consumers from deceptive practices.