ExxonMobil has sued California Legal professional Basic Rob Bonta and several other environmental teams for an alleged “smear marketing campaign” in opposition to its superior recycling program to falsely declare that the oil firm contributes to local weather change with a view to profit competing overseas pursuits.
Takeaway: This case asserts defamation on the a part of a authorities official, allegedly brought on by ties to marketing campaign financing from overseas opponents. It additionally includes an alleged civil conspiracy with a legislation agency, which ExxonMobil claimed was additionally a donor to the lawyer basic’s campaigns and required to register as a overseas agent by the U.S. Division of Justice.
Court docket: U.S. District Court docket for the Jap District of Texas
Case Sort: Defamation, Tortious Interference and Civil Conspiracy
Business: Vitality and Pure Sources
Attorneys: Michael T. Money and Wade T. Howard of Liskow & Lewis in Houston are representing ExxonMobil. Attorneys representing the defendants haven’t entered their look within the case.
Legal responsibility Arguments: In keeping with the grievance, Bonta and environmental activist teams such because the Sierra Membership, Surfrider Basis, Heal the Bay, and Baykeeper, have promoted recycling for years and inspired an financial system that reduces waste and reuses supplies. Nonetheless, ExxonMobil alleged that Bonta and the pro-environmental teams publicly attacked their superior recycling program, claiming it contributed to local weather change and elevated greenhouse fuel emissions.
Bonta has publicly said that ExxonMobil “proposed sham options” and referred to as its superior recycling “a false promise” and “a fantasy.” He additionally reportedly deemed ExxonMobil “the biggest producer of polymers and one of many largest liars.” These misrepresentations had been made regardless of ExxonMobil’s recyling program reusing 70 million kilos of plastic waste, the lawsuit mentioned.
ExxonMobil alleged the defendants are “posing beneath the banner of environmentalism” whereas defaming real recycling efforts. The rationale for the change in public place, the grievance mentioned, was the affect of Australian non-profit IEJF in financing Bonta’s political campaigns. IEJF is a competitor with ExxonMobil within the low carbon options and power transition areas.
IEJF additionally retained legislation agency Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy to file a lawsuit in opposition to ExxonMobil on behalf of the Sierra Membership, Surfrider, Heal the Bay, and Baykeeper. The agency has additionally allegedly donated tens of hundreds of {dollars} to Bonta’s political campaigns.
Damages Arguments: ExxonMobil alleged it has suffered hurt from the defendants’ coordinated smear marketing campaign. The corporate is in search of a declaratory judgment discovering Bonta and the environmental teams responsible for enterprise disparagement, defamation, tortious interference and civil conspiracy. The corporate can also be in search of compensatory damages for repute and financial hurt.
ExxonMobil can also be requesting a declaration that superior recycling is acknowledged and permitted by legislation in a number of states, together with Texas, alongside injunctions requiring the defendants to retract defamatory statements.
What the legal professionals are saying: Plaintiff’s counsel didn’t instantly return a request for remark. In keeping with the docket, Bonta and the environmental teams haven’t but retained counsel. The California Division of Justice didn’t return a request for remark.
Radar scan: It is not the primary time ExxonMobil and the state bumped heads. In September 2023, ExxonMobil was amongst a number of the defendants hit with an environmental lawsuit in San Francisco County Superior Court docket in an effort to carry fossil gasoline firms accountable for local weather change. In one other matter initially filed in state courtroom, California’s lawsuit in opposition to Exxon Mobil was eliminated to the U.S. District Court docket for the Northern District of California, accusing the defendant of deceptive clients into believing that recycling was a viable resolution to the plastic waste and air pollution disaster.
Caption: Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Bonta
Choose: U.S. District Choose Michael Joseph Truncale
This grievance was first surfaced by Regulation.com Radar, ALM’s supply for quick alerting on just-filed instances in state and federal courts. Regulation.com Radar now affords state courtroom protection nationwide. Enroll right now and be among the many first to learn about new fits in your area, observe space or shopper sector.
