A local District of Columbia court judge appeared torn regarding claims made by the city of Washington, D.C. suing international energy companies over allegedly violating local consumer protection laws simply by doing business.
The case is one of many brought by Democrat-governed cities and states using local laws to target companies like Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp., BP and Shell in the name of fighting global warming.
In the case heard by DC Superior Court Judge Yvonne Williams on March 20, 2025, the District of Columbia attorney general argues that energy companies violated the district’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act by misleading consumers regarding global warming. The suit demands they pay restitution and civil penalties.
Then-DC Attorney General Karl Racine, who filed the case in 2020, based his case on legal action taken by dozens of states in the 1990s against Big Tobacco companies. That resulted in a multi-billion-dollar settlement.
Williams appeared skeptical of the comparisons between Big Oil and Big Tobacco.
She noted Big Tobacco companies regularly denied that cigarettes cause cancer and encouraged people to keep smoking.
“That’s not the same as the tobacco litigation because there are no lies, arguably,” she said.
Similar cases have been thrown out of state court, most recently in nearby Baltimore and in New York City. Attorneys representing the energy companies asked Williams to do the same.
Chevron attorney Theodore Boutrous Jr. of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP, said the District’s suit contains “the strangest consumer protection claims I’ve ever seen.”
Boutrous said the plaintiff violated the First Amendment and attempted to censor speech. “Whether they say climate change is not a problem or whether they say it is a problem, that issue is open for debate,” he said.
He also noted the hypocrisy of a city where nearly have the residents rely on natural gas and gas stations dot the landscape targeting the companies these citizens rely on.
“Their own behavior nullifies their claim,” argued Boutrous.
When D.C. attorneys suggested BP was misleading customers into thinking that natural gas didn’t emit carbon emissions by saying natural gas burns 50 percent cleaner than coal, BP attorney James Cooper pointed out the District never disputed the accuracy of the comment.
“It’s ridiculous,” he exclaimed.
“I see your point,” said Williams.
DC’s attorneys suggested the oil companies mounted “sophisticated campaigns of deception” to consumers on their product. They alleged Big Oil funded research meant to convince the public there was no connection between climate change and fossil fuels.
As for Big Oil’s turn towards renewable energy, plaintiff attorneys accused executives of trying to put a “lipstick on a pig” and lying to consumers. This included claiming carbon dioxide was good for the world, and that scientists hadn’t reached a consensus on global warming.
Again, Williams was skeptical.
She asked why DC’s attorneys did not use quotes from Big Oil executives that were deceptive regarding their “switch” to renewable energy or climate change. “It’s just your opinion and not an actual fact that comes out of the complaint,” Williams said.
After the hearing, Boutrous sounded hopeful regarding the outcome.
“The plaintiff’s claims are meritless as they fail to identify a single alleged misrepresentation by Chevron in their entire complaint. Addressing climate change requires a coordinated international policy response, not meritless state and local lawsuits that have been repeatedly dismissed by multiple federal and state courts,” Boutrous said in a statement following the hearing.
Meanwhile, advocates for America’s energy producers say the Trump administration should address this attempt to use local laws clearly not designed to apply to global actors as weapons in the political fight over climate policy.
O.H. Skinner with the Alliance For Consumers warns that, while the Trump administration may roll back federal regulations on energy production and consumer choice, these local lawsuits “are a ticket for left-wing activists to nullify the pro-consumer agenda flowing out of the United States government.”
“It will matter very little if federal agencies prioritize consumer choice,” Skinner writes, “if we see companies… forced to comply with a left-wing worldview because of a court order or binding settlement in a public nuisance climate lawsuit.”
Phil Goldberg, Special Counsel for the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project, watched the hearing and says the outlook is good for the rule of law.
“Today’s arguments clearly showed that DC’s laws are not so limitless and unprincipled as to govern, let alone impose liability on, the promotion and sale of energy all around the world for the past several decades, particularly when unrelated to any sales made to DC residents.
“As we heard the lawyers say in court today, courts around the country—including in neighboring Maryland and Delaware—are already seeing through these climate lawsuits and recognizing that neither the law nor commonsense subjects energy producers and sellers to liability for climate change,” Goldberg added.
