News & Analysis
February 21, 2025
Minnesota is one step closer to putting three major architects of climate disinformation on trial for their decades of deception after a judge denied ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute, and Koch Industries’s requests to have the state’s case dismissed. The ruling aligns with rulings in similar climate accountability cases in Honolulu, Boulder, Vermont, and Massachusetts, all of which have survived Big Oil defendants’ attempts to dismiss the cases.
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison filed the state’s lawsuit in 2020, accusing Exxon, API, and Koch of running a “campaign of deception” to mislead Minnesotans about the harm of fossil fuels. The case charges the companies with violating Minnesota state laws against consumer fraud, deceptive trade practices, and false statements in advertising, and seeks an end to those illegal practices, among other corrective actions.
In an extensive analysis, District Court Judge Reynaldo Aligada Jr. found that most of the defendants’ arguments against the validity of Minnesota’s claims fell flat, ultimately ruling that the case can continue moving toward trial. Notably, Aligada rejected one of the fossil fuel industry’s standard arguments that climate accountability lawsuits aim to restrict Big Oil’s pollution, as opposed to the companies’ longtime climate deception.
“The Court also concludes that federal common law, even if it still existed, would not preempt the State’s claims because those claims do not aim to restrain pollution or regulate emissions,” Aligada wrote. “Rather, they allege state law consumer deception and failure-to-warn claims that have never been subject to federal common law.”
Aligada also wrote that recent rulings to dismiss climate accountability cases in New York City and Baltimore — cases that the oil defendants pointed to as reasons why Minnesota’s case should be dismissed as well — were “wrongly decided.” Both the City of New York and Baltimore have appealed those recent rulings.
The judge granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss Minnesota’s claims that they violated the state’s Consumer Fraud Act, yet allowed all of the other statutory and common law claims to proceed.
“These defendants prioritized their profits over the people of Minnesota, and deception was their business model,” Minnesota Attorney General Ellison said. “The court’s thorough analysis and well-reasoned order puts us one step closer to proving that in court.”
Image credit: Lorie Shaull via flickr
