New Jersey vows to appeal ruling that would let Big Oil escape accountability

New Jersey’s attorney general says his office is “appealing immediately” a state judge’s decision to dismiss the state’s lawsuit that seeks to hold Big Oil companies accountable for their climate deception and make them pay for the damage it has caused to the state.
 
Judge Douglas Hurd sided with Exxon, Chevron and other oil majors that argued the state’s case “is entirely about addressing the injuries of global climate change” and therefore preempted by federal law.

“We are disappointed in today’s decision, which allows some of the country’s most powerful companies to escape accountability for hiding the truth and misleading New Jerseyans about the role their products play in causing climate change,” New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin’s office said following the dismissal. “The trial court’s decision is wrong, and inconsistent with decisions in other states, and we are appealing immediately. We will not let companies get away with putting profit above public safety.”

Big Oil defendants have long attempted to escape trial in the growing number of climate accountability cases they face, often relying on an argument that the cases seek to regulate emissions rather than stop the companies’ long-running and well-documented deception campaigns.

“The court’s analysis of this case is flawed, and the attorney general is right to appeal,” Alyssa Johl, vice president and general counsel at CCI, said following the ruling. “This case is about holding Big Oil companies accountable for deceiving the people of New Jersey about the dangers of fossil fuels — it is not seeking to solve global climate change. Other courts in similar cases have correctly recognized that any argument to the contrary is a mischaracterization. The people of New Jersey deserve their day in court to hold Big Oil accountable.”

Baltimore, Maryland, recently appealed a similar ruling in its case to make fossil fuel companies pay for their climate lies, arguing that the court “erred in finding the City’s claims preempted for multiple reasons, all of which stem from its misunderstanding of the Complaint.” That appeal took on new importance after a different Maryland state judge in January cited Baltimore’s dismissal as reason to dismiss climate accountability lawsuits from Annapolis and Anne Arundel County — which the judge initially ruled could advance toward trial.
 
Courts in other states have rejected Big Oil’s arguments and ruled that climate accountability lawsuits in Hawai`i, Massachusetts, Colorado, and Vermont could all advance toward trial. For example, the Supreme Court of Hawai`i found that Honolulu’s complaint — premised on the same deceptive conduct at issue in New Jersey’s case — is not preempted by federal law and “clearly seeks to challenge the promotion and sale of fossil-fuel products without warning and abetted by a sophisticated disinformation campaign” and that oil companies’ arguments claiming otherwise “fail.”

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider Big Oil’s appeal of that ruling, paving the way for Honolulu to engage in full discovery efforts on its way to putting Big Oil on trial.