1. Causes of Action

Australia

In Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility v Santos Ltd  (pending), the Environmental Defenders Office, acting on behalf of the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ACCR), has filed a Federal Court case against gas giant Santos over its claims natural gas is "clean fuel" and that it has a credible pathway to net zero emissions by 2040. ACCR will argue the claims - contained in the company's 2020 Annual Report - constitute misleading or deceptive conduct under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the Australian Consumer Law. On 25 August 2022, the ACCR announced that they were expanding their case against Santos.

In Mitsubishi Motors v Begovic, '(...)The Senior Member expressed the following conclusions about the label: (...) Based upon my findings set out above, I conclude that the label was misleading and deceptive for the vehicle. My finding is limited to the vehicle subject of these proceedings. The label information was false based on the expert evidence (...). As set out previously, I found that the label contained representations about the vehicle which were untrue(...).'

In, ACCC v Volkswagen, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's (ACCC) action against Volkswagen resulted in a significant settlement where Volkswagen agreed to pay fines and compensation for misleading Australian consumers regarding the diesel emissions of their vehicles.

In GM Holden Ltd's "Grrrrrreen" , GM Holden Ltd made false and misleading claims in its "Grrrrrreen" campaign which promoted the environmentally friendly nature of its Saab range of vehicles.32 Before the latter case proceeded to court, V8 Supercars Australia Pty Ltd acknowledged the ACCC's concerns that its claim that carbon emissions would be entirely offset by the planting of trees may have been misleading or deceptive.

In V8 Supercars Australia Pty Ltd, V8 Supercars Australia Pty Ltd addressed the ACCC's concerns regarding their misleading claims about carbon emissions offset by tree planting before the matter proceeded to court. V8 Supercars Australia Pty Ltd acknowledged the ACCC's concerns that its claim that carbon emissions would be entirely offset by the planting of trees may have been misleading or deceptive

In Abrahams v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA), the Federal Court ruled in favor of the Abrahams, allowing them access to CBA's internal documents related to funding oil and gas projects, with restrictions on their use.

In AGL Energy v Greenpeace, AGL Energy's claims against Greenpeace for trademark infringement and copyright in their campaigns failed, except for specific social media posts and materials. This case sets a precedent for using parody, satire, and criticism in campaigns against climate inaction.

France

In Greenpeace France and Others v. TotalEnergies SE and TotalEnergies Electricité et Gaz France (pending). The claim against TotalEnergies for misleading advertising related to their environmental claims and role in the energy transition is under scrutiny. The Paris judicial court accepted the standing of the associations to sue, with the case focusing on whether TotalEnergies' claims constitute deceptive commercial practices that could influence consumer behavior.

Germany

In the case of Deutsche Umwelthilfe v. TotalEnergies Wärme & Kraftstoff Deutschland GmbH, an NGO filed actions against companies for misleading environmental claims under the Act Against Unfair Competition (UWG). The legal basis was prohibitions on unfair business-to-consumer practices, misleading information, and withholding essential information are key elements of UWG.

India

In Rural Litigation Entitlement Kendra v State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors - Supreme Court of India (1998): The Supreme Court of India recognized the environmental and ecological impact of limestone quarrying, leading to the closure of certain quarries. The court acknowledged the financial loss and hardship this decision would cause to the business owners but emphasized the necessity of these measures to protect the people's right to a healthy environment, maintain ecological balance.

Netherlands

In FossielvrijNL v. KLM, (pending) Fossielvrij NL issued a letter of summons to Dutch aviation company KLM at a shareholder meeting of AirFrance-KLM. The letter states that KLM will be sued in violation of European consumer law if it does not cease misleading advertisement claims under its 'Fly Responsibly' campaign to the effect that CO2 compensation measures and alternative fuels can make flying sustainable. The Fly Responsibly ads present the airline as "creating a more sustainable future" and on track to reduce its emissions to net zero by 2050. The case builds on a national decision of the national Advertisement Code Commission on 8 April 2022, the Dutch media watchdog dealing with complaints about misleading advertisement under the Advertisement Code. The commission ruled that elements of the 'Fly Responsibly' campaign violated the codes provisions on misleading advertising, especially those elements referring to 'climate neutrality' or 'CO2ZERO'.

United Kingdom

Crossley v. Volkswagen AG (VW Emissions Scandal): This case involved claims against Volkswagen concerning the use of 'defeat devices' in their vehicles, which were designed to manipulate emission tests to comply with EU regulations falsely. The litigation included claims of fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of statutory duty, breach of contract, and violations of various consumer legislation pieces. The case settled without admission of liability but with an apology from Volkswagen after the second strike-out application failed in December 2021.

United States

In District of Columbia v. Exxon Mobil Corp. ' the Defendants argue (...) In the rare instance when a federal court creates such a rule, it must ensure two things. First, the state law or claim must affect "uniquely federal interests." The Court assumes, without deciding, that Defendants have identified "uniquely federal interests" to satisfy the first part of the federal common law test (...)'

Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Inc. v. Chevron Corp., where a commercial fishing industry trade group filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court against fossil fuel companies for climate change impacts. The complaint included state claims of nuisance and claims of negligent and strict liability for failure to warn.

Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP p.l.c.: This case involved the Mayor and City of Baltimore filing a lawsuit against 26 fossil fuel companies in Maryland state court, seeking to hold them liable for injuries resulting from climate change. The case emphasized the defendants' marketing and climate disinformation campaigns.

Municipalities of Puerto Rico v. Exxon Mobil Corp.: Filed in 2022, claiming failure to warn among other allegations, with no substantive decision made at the time of the information provided.