1. Causes of Action

I  Australia

In Australia, corporate climate cases based on fraud laws have not yet been brought. However, there have been climate protest cases filed that may have relevance to aspects of government fraud in a broad sense. For example, in Rolles v Commissioner of Police, a member of the Extinction Rebellion climate activist group (XR), participated in a blockage of a coal train railway for the given reason that climate change poses an imminent and ongoing threat to civilisation and successive governments have not been taking the threat seriously. The claimant further argued that climate change consists of an 'extraordinary emergency' and, therefore, the defence of sudden or extraordinary emergency under Section 25 of the Queensland Criminal Code 1899 ought to apply, however, this was rejected by the Magistrate and the claimants was convicted and fined. Similarly, in NSW Police v Coco, another XR activist was arrested for their involvement in a two-vehicle convoy that parked on Sydney Harbour Bridge to call attention to government inaction on climate change. The claimant asserted that when a government has failed its duty to the people, for reasons of vested interests or political populism, it is the people's duty to rise up and rebel against that government to right the wrong that is happening. This argument was not successful, and the claimant was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of eight months for her non-violent direct action, which was later quashed and replaced with a 12-month conditional release order.

II  Brazil

In Brazil, there exist several laws regulating fraud, which can be a potential cause of action in corporate climate litigation. First, the Environmental Crimes Law (Law No. 9.605/1998) defines infractions and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions for activities harmful to the environment, including through fraud. Second, the Consumer Protection Code (Law No. 8.078/1990), prohibits all misleading or abusive advertising, including fraud. Third, the relevant liability provisions in the Anti-Corruption Law  (Law No. 12.846/2013) (see above Legislative Provisions - Brazil), can be applied to companies that practice acts against public patrimony related to environmental and climate issues. In addition, they are important in the face of fraud in environmental licensing and other dealings with the Public Administration that facilitate the advance of deforestation in Brazil. Last, the relevant provisions in the Federal Decree 11.129/2022 Regulating Federal Law 12.846/2013 Anti-Corruption Law (see above Legislative Provisions - Brazil), can be applied to companies that practice acts against the public patrimony related to environmental and climate issues, and environmental and climate integrity plans may be required.

III  Canada

In Canada, no corporate climate litigation claim has yet been brought under allegations of fraud. The four elements which are required for fraud, namely i) a false representation by the defendant, ii) some level of knowledge of the falsehood of the representation on the part of the defendant (whether knowledge or recklessness), iii) the false representation caused the plaintiff to act, and iv) the plaintiff's actions resulted in a loss, have been established in civil case law. As discussed under tort law, fraudulent misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation relate to corporate climate litigation. 

IV  China

In China, a possible cause of action in corporate climate litigation in the context of fraud law is the fraud of carbon emissions data. Such carbon emission data fraud cases have been disclosed by the Ministry of Ecology and Environment in 2022. One case, namely All-China Environment Federation,  is pending as of November 2023, however, the Beijing Municipal No. 4 Intermediate People's Court accepted the case in June 2022 (see also above Current Applications - China). Carbon emission data fraud cases might, therefore, be filed more often in the future. In addition, as these cases revealed the potential of suing enterprises and third-party assessment agencies of data fraud, they provide a legal inspiration for greenwashing cases.

V  France

VI  Germany

In Germany, no corporate climate case has yet been filed based on fraud. Under German civil law, liability for fraud falls under the general provisions of tort law (see 1C: Tort Law Section). 

VII  India

In India, the case Naim Sharif Hasware vs. M/s Das Offshore Co. dealt with fraud. In this case, the tribunal, confirmed by the Supreme Court, imposed a fine on Das Offshore, citing the company's deliberate violation of various steps in the EIA process, such as site selection and public hearings. The Tribunal noted that the company had engaged in acts of suppression of facts or fraud. This violation led to the destruction of mudflats and mangroves during the development of an offshore fabrication yard near the Rajapuri creek in Maharashtra's Raigad district (see also Current Applications - India).

VIII  Italy

In Italy, the relevant cases concerned with fraud involve consumer protection law (see Section 1E: Consumer Protection Law). 

IX  Japan

In Japan, fraudulent misrepresentation as discussed under tort law can serve as a cause of action in corporate climate litigation in the context of fraud laws. 

X  Kenya

XI  Netherlands

In the Netherlands, provisions to combat fraud may play a role in corporate climate litigation regarding so-called VAT carousel fraud in emissions trading. This type of fraud involves entrepreneurs charging VAT but failing to declare it to the tax authorities. The Dutch Criminal Code prohibits such fraud in various provisions (see Legislative Provisions - Netherlands). 

XII  Nigeria

In Nigeria, fraud laws have not yet been a cause of action in corporate climate litigation. Section 419 of the Criminal Code Act, however, provides a basis for future climate claims based on fraud, for example, if a car dealer defrauds, through false pretence, a client by collecting the latter's money for the supply of expensive energy efficient and climate-friendly electric cars, but delivers cheaper regular petrol vehicles. 

XIII  Norway

In Norway, the Penal Code  contains important provisions for environmental crime. In addition, according to the criminal liability for company and other institutions, enterprises can be fined for environmental crimes, which could lead to imprisonment in some cases (see Legislative Provisions - Norway). In the context of tort law and environmental crimes, the National Authority for Investigation and Prosecution of Economic and Environmental Crime (Økokrim) has carried out work relating to court cases dealing with individuals and environmental crimes (see Current Applications - Norway). 

XIV  Philippines

In the Philippines, causes of action based on fraud in corporate climate litigation may fall under fraudulent misrepresentation or contractual fraud (see under tort law). Besides tort law, the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000  includes a provision with a fraud element, as it penalises the importation of toxic wastes misrepresented as 'recyclable' or 'with recyclable content'. 

XV  Poland

In Poland, causes of action based on fraud in corporate climate litigation is covered by fraudulent representation and tort law (see under tort law).

XVI  United Kingdom

In the UK, a cause of action based on fraud law in corporate climate litigation requires the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to prosecute presumably a major emitter. 

XVII  United States

In the US, only a few corporate climate cases have been brought based on fraud laws, all in combination with other causes of action, for example, consumer protection law. While the Swartz v. Coca-Cola Co.  case was dismissed, the State v. American Petroleum Institute and Dorris v. Danone Waters of America are both still pending (see Current Application - US).