Over the past several years, there have been more than three dozen lawsuits launched against the major fossil fuel companies seeking damages due to climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions. These claims are based upon state law (e.g., consumer protection statutes) or common law (e.g., nuisance). One common defense argued by the fossil fuel companies is that the state courts cannot exercise jurisdiction over them in connection with these claims since worldwide greenhouse gas emissions are not “relate[d] to [] conduct” in a particular state and it would therefore be “unreasonable” to exercise jurisdiction over them. Earlier this week, a state court in California rejected that theory and held that the courts could hear these claims.

Specifically, the court determined that the “claims arise out of or are related to Defendants' extensive contacts with California, including their sale and promotion of fossil fuel products in California, their allegedly deceptive statements regarding climate change, and the alleged injuries Plaintiffs suffered in California.” In short, the climate-related contacts with a particular jurisdiction were sufficient to enable climate change torts to be heard by the court. The California state court also noted that “[e]very other court to have considered the same issues in climate change cases brought against oil and gas companies has reached the same conclusion,” indicating that this argument--though frequently invoked by the fossil fuel companies--has generally been unsuccessful. 

Although this holding is relatively limited in scope, and does not touch upon the merits of the cases--it only determined that the California state court could hear the claims--it nonetheless has significant implications. Most importantly, it demonstrates that unless there is a fundamental change in the law (i.e., through Congress or the Supreme Court), the major fossil fuel companies will likely be subject to suit in nearly every, if not all, state jurisdictions across the United States, which will likely encourage even more lawsuits to be filed against these companies. Moreover, the legal reasoning in these cases may undercut attempts by the fossil fuel companies to limit the scope of the claims against them--e.g., by arguing that only claims based upon state-specific conduct be heard. In other words, this decision increases the odds that there will ultimately be significant liability for the major fossil fuel companies in connection with damages associated with climate change.