Exxon Sues California Over Climate Disclosure Laws (reuters.com)
- Reference: 0179873404
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/25/10/26/0034252/exxon-sues-california-over-climate-disclosure-laws
- Source link: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/exxon-sues-california-over-climate-disclosure-laws-2025-10-25/
> In a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Exxon argued that Senate Bills 253 and 261 violate its First Amendment rights by compelling Exxon to "serve as a mouthpiece for ideas with which it disagrees," and asked the court to block the state of California from enforcing the laws. Exxon said the laws force it to adopt California's preferred frameworks for climate reporting, which it views as misleading and counterproductive...
>
> The California laws were supported by several big companies including Apple, Ikea and Microsoft, but opposed by [2]several major groups such as the American Farm Bureau Federation and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which called them "onerous." SB 253 requires public and private companies that are active in the state and generate revenue of more than $1 billion annually to publish an extensive account of their carbon emissions starting in 2026. The law requires the disclosure of both the companies' own emissions and indirect emissions by their suppliers and customers. SB 261 requires companies that operate in the state with over $500 million in revenue to disclose climate-related financial risks and strategies to mitigate risk. Exxon also argued that SB 261 conflicts with existing federal securities laws, which already regul
>
> "The First Amendment bars California from pursuing a policy of stigmatization by forcing Exxon Mobil to describe its non-California business activities using the State's preferred framing," Exxon said in the lawsuit.
Exxon Mobil "asks the court to prevent the laws from going into effect next year," [3]reports the Associated Press :
> In its complaint, ExxonMobil says it has for years publicly disclosed its greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related business risks, but it fundamentally disagrees with the state's new reporting requirements. The company would have to use "frameworks that place disproportionate blame on large companies like ExxonMobil" for the purpose of shaming such companies, the complaint states...
>
> A spokesperson for the office of California Gov. Gavin Newsom said in an email that it was "truly shocking that one of the biggest polluters on the planet would be opposed to transparency."
[1] https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/exxon-sues-california-over-climate-disclosure-laws-2025-10-25/
[2] https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/californias-landmark-climate-disclosure-laws-challenged-by-business-groups-2024-01-30/
[3] https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/25/exxonmobil-sues-california-over-climate-disclosure-laws.html
Fine (Score:2)
Take away their FA rights then. That was a stupid idea anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
This x 1000. Corporations aren't people.
Exxon should just stop selling in California (Score:1)
It will only take on or two major oil companies to stop selling gasoline in California for the California government and politicians to stop using this as a way to build a set of political campaign issues. Exxon, or one of the majors could do the Walmart Chicago strategy, where Walmart was going to open stores around, but outside the city of Chicago to avoid the taxes and other regulatory threats maid by Chichago's city government.
Not for or against this here.
Given that making Exxon file additional governm
Re: (Score:2)
I would gladly see Exxon and all other oil companies and refineries leave the state. Fuck them. But they won't because they make billions here, and because California would just buy more electric cars, hastening the inevitable demise of fossil fuels.
As for California's special blends of fuel, they do reduce air pollution and should be mandated nationwide.
Re: (Score:2)
> I would gladly see Exxon and all other oil companies and refineries leave the state.
Exxon could just sell wholesale tank-loads of gasoline in adjacent states, let some other company blend it and bring it into California to sell.
Re: (Score:2)
climate change isn't a campaign issue. it's reality. look at the average yearly temperature numbers pattern
Not entirely (Score:2)
California's governor, Gavin Newsom is in the running for the Democrat party presidential nomination and holding big oil's feet to the fire is a vote gaining thing.
[1]https://polymarket.com/event/d... [polymarket.com]
OUTCOME % CHANCE
Gavin Newsom 35%
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 12%
Pete Buttigieg 6% ...
[1] https://polymarket.com/event/democratic-presidential-nominee-2028?tid=1761444226116
Re: (Score:1)
sure. but that doesn't have an impact on its validity
just because a politician used it, that doesn't mean it's false
Vote Ganing thing: explanation (Score:2)
How to win an election:
Before the election propose ideas that your voters like and convince people to enact them.
How to be good at your job (as a politician or any other job):
At work, propose ideas that your voters like and convince people to enact them.
How to be a shmuck:
Look at politicians that are good at their job and complain that they are just trying to win an election.
Voting Gaining Things are what Democracy is all about.
Re: (Score:1)
"climate change isn't a campaign issue. it's reality. look at the average yearly temperature numbers pattern"
I forgot to use 'just':
climate change isn't just a campaign issue. it's reality. look at the average yearly temperature numbers pattern
my bad
Re: (Score:2)
> climate change isn't a campaign issue. it's reality.
It's both.
Re: (Score:2)
Hate California all you want, but California is the fourth largest economy in the world. If you're the CEO of a corporation that refuses to do business with the fourth largest economy in the world, your shareholders will hang you out by the balls and let the California condors have their way with you.
that reasoning is so wrong (Score:1)
> Exxon argued that Senate Bills 253 and 261 violate its First Amendment rights by compelling Exxon to "serve as a mouthpiece for ideas with which it disagrees"
climate change isn't an idea, it's reality
Re: (Score:1)
> climate change isn't an idea, it's reality
Just because something is real doesn't mean the government can force private corporations to speak about it.
This isn't just stating the reality, they are forced to frame their words in a way that favors government policy. There's "compelled speech" in a manner in having labels on foods and medications have a label that states clearly and accurately what is inside. There can be warnings on the "reality" that consumption of tobacco and alcohol products is bad for your health. Why force the large oil compan
Re: (Score:1)
> SB 253 requires public and private companies that are active in the state and generate revenue of more than $1 billion annually to publish an extensive account of their carbon emissions starting in 2026. The law requires the disclosure of both the companies' own emissions and indirect emissions by their suppliers and customers. SB 261 requires companies that operate in the state with over $500 million in revenue to disclose climate-related financial risks and strategies to mitigate risk
wait, all I see is disclosure/reporting. I don't see any "compelled speech". I don't see them being required to acknowledge something.
Self doxing. (Score:1)
The fact that they are suing already speaks volumes. A more intelligent way to check mate them would have been to have different tiers of reporting necessary tied in to different emission levels in order to get them to dox themselves.
More assholes claimign first amendment (Score:2)
More examples of vile shmucks trying to convince courts that they are allowed to break the law because of the first amendment. NO. Doing what the government orders you to do is not being forced to support an idea. It is obeying the law.
The first amendment does not mean you get to stop the government from requiring you to do things. It does not mean you can say whatever you want - you can still be sued for slander etc.
Re: (Score:2)
> The first amendment does not mean you get to stop the government from requiring you to do things. It does not mean you can say whatever you want - you can still be sued for slander etc.
We have kind of the opposite thing going on here in Canada.
[1]Faced with consumer-protection provisions aimed at false corporate environmental claims, some companies have stopped making them entirely [nationalmagazine.ca].
[1] https://nationalmagazine.ca/en-ca/articles/law/hot-topics-in-law/2025/from-greenwashing-to-greenhushing
incredible shortsightedness (Score:1)
> The California laws were supported by several big companies including Apple, Ikea and Microsoft, but opposed by several major groups such as the American Farm Bureau Federation and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which called them "onerous."
what will be onerous are the lives of your grandchildren you greedy bastards
Discovery (Score:2)
The great thing about lawsuits is that you can easily countersue, and then both sides get full discovery of everything the other side has.
I think Thomas Jefferson said it best (Score:2)
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created so they can hide the effects of climate change from both the public and their investors! "
And the best part is at least 25% of the people here can't tell if the quote above is real or not. Treaty of Tripoli be damned.
Re: Well EVs don't help at all because of tire (Score:2)
smog depends almost entirely on NOx, SOx and VOC from burning hydrocarbons in air.
Electric cars don't weigh that much more then comparable gasoline vehicles, especially for sedans and crossovers. They also tend to have very good weight distribution between the front/back and left/right, so they can end up having less weight on each tire then a comparable gas car. The weight on each tire is what matters, not the total car weight.
A big savings for BEV particulate emissions are the brakes. The regular mechani
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't reply to rsilvergun. You replied to a mentally deranged asshole mascarading as rsilvergun, who probably used AI to generate his post.
Didn't you see the anonymous post ?
You guys keep getting fooled again, and again, and again...
Re: Well EVs don't help at all because of tire (Score:2)
CO2 is invisible. Tire particulate would cool the environment, if anything. Quit gaslighting.
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of examples of governments (or their agencies) "compelling" speech from companies, even satisfying specific formats . For example, the SEC requires publically-traded companies to report earnings quarterly and annually using various prescribed accounting practices.
I see this new climate-related reporting law as being the same kind of thing. And for that reason, I predict Exxon's free-speech challenge will fail.
Re: I think Thomas Jefferson said it best (Score:2)
Yup. Some others companies fought were ingredients lists ("We'll lose our secret recipes!"), nutrition information and calories ("people can work it out from the ingredients!"), financial disclosures ("Competitors can take advantage"), standardized rates of interest rate comparables ("customers can do the math!").
Anything that exposes the truth, risks, or potential liability or unwanted data gets fought as an existential threat.