Exposure that does not involve emissions
Most companies that end up in climate change litigation are not large emitters. They are sellers whose product claims, such as carbon neutral, recyclable, or sustainably sourced, are challenged as misleading under state consumer protection laws, which in New York reach deceptive acts and false advertising. Attorneys general have brought similar claims against companies over net zero promises. Public companies can face securities claims if climate statements in filings or investor presentations turn out to be unsupported. Pressure also comes from the other direction, as some state officials have investigated or sued financial firms and companies over climate commitments they view as boycotts or coordinated conduct.
Reviewing what you have said
The record in these cases is usually your own words. Pull together marketing claims, sustainability reports, website statements, investor materials, and the data and methods behind each one, including any third-party certifications or offsets you relied on. Internal emails discussing whether a target was realistic are often the documents opposing parties want most, so a litigation hold should go out once a claim is threatened. Disclosure rules are shifting: a federal securities climate rule was adopted but put on hold, and the agency later stopped defending it, while California has its own climate disclosure laws for larger companies doing business there, parts of which have been challenged. Confirm the current status before planning around any of them.
Deciding how to respond
When a demand letter or complaint arrives, we look at which statements are at issue, whether they can be substantiated, and whether arbitration clauses or class waivers in consumer terms apply. Changing a claim going forward can be sensible, but it should be done in a way that does not read as an admission about the past. We also review insurance, since some policies respond to advertising or securities claims. For companies that have not been sued, a review of current claims against the evidence behind them is usually the most practical place to begin.
