Blogs

A Landmark Ruling in Paris

In late October 2025, a Paris civil court handed down a decision that could reshape how global energy companies discuss their efforts in climate transition. The court ruled that an energy company misled consumers through a 2021 rebranding campaign where the company promised to be “a major player in the energy transition” and “to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050.”

The plaintiffs—three environmental groups—alleged claims based primarily upon France’s consumer-protection laws, supplemented by the European Parliament’s directives targeted at misleading environmental representations. According to the plaintiffs, the energy company’s sweeping statements about its climate efforts concealed an underlying business model still dominated by oil and gas production. These statements, the plaintiffs argued, were misleading in a market where consumers are increasingly sensitive to a company’s environmental footprint.

The court agreed in part. Viewing the statements through the lens of a consumer, the court found that the energy company engaged in “misleading commercial practices” through its statements which could be perceived as deceptive about the scope of its environmental commitments given the company’s continued investment in oil and gas exploration and production. The company was ordered to remove the misleading statements from its website and post a link to the judgment or face fines of up to €20,000 per day. The judges dismissed, however, a separate allegation concerning statements about fossil gas and biofuels, finding those remarks informational with no connection to marketing products to consumers.

This is the first major European court decision to hold a fossil-fuel company legally responsible for “greenwashing” in its consumer advertising. It signals a new willingness, at least in Europe, to treat corporate messaging about climate efforts as factual representations subject to verification.

While the Paris decision is subject to appeal, it is anticipated that its impacts will be felt around the world. In the United States, similar challenges have emerged—but with less decisive results. Plaintiffs and state attorneys general have filed a growing number of suits alleging that fossil-fuel producers have overstated their climate credentials, yet few of these lawsuits have survived the early stages of litigation.

In January 2025, in City of New York v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al, a New York State judge dismissed the City of New York’s lawsuit against Exxon Mobil, BP, and Shell, which alleged that the companies misled consumers about the environmental impacts of their fossil fuel products and their commitment to renewable energy. There, the court held that the link between fossil-fuel use and climate change was common knowledge, making deception implausible. The court also identified comments regarding clean and alternative energy as aspirational and lacking a nexus to the sale of fossil fuel products to consumers.

Other greenwashing lawsuits have survived the pleading stage. Following the denial of motions to dismiss, the District of Columbia’s attorney general continues to pursue a consumer-protection case accusing major oil companies for misrepresenting their role in climate change through decades of advertising in District of Columbia v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al. Similar actions in Massachusetts, Minnesota, and several other municipalities are pending, each testing whether traditional false-advertising and consumer protection laws can meaningfully police climate-related claims.

The ruling issued by the Paris court is potentially a pivotal moment in corporate climate-communications law. For the first time, a major fossil-fuel company was found liable for its net-zero messaging when that messaging was found to be at odds with its investments. Recent trends suggest that certain jurisdictions in the United States may not be far behind.

For more information, contact Liskow attorneys Kelly Becker, Jamie Rhymes, James Lapeze, and Andrew Hughes, and visit Liskow’s Energy – Litigation practice page.

BOEM’s Final Notice of Sale (FNOS) for Big Beautiful Gulf 1 (BBG1), to be published in the Federal Register on November 10, 2025, will offer for leasing approximately 15,083 unleased OCS blocks located across the Gulf of America (GOA) – all, regardless of water depth, at the lowest allowable federal offshore royalty rate of 12.5%. BBG1 will be held on December 10, 2025, and is the first of 30 federal offshore lease sales mandated by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), Pub. L. No. 119-21, which was signed into law on July 4, 2025.

The FNOS contains details regarding lease terms and conditions for BBG1. Pursuant to the OBBBA, BBG1 is legislatively required to offer at least 80 million acres (or all unleased GOA OCS lands not subject to a prohibition against or restricted from leasing). The OBBBA also legislatively mandates that leases in water depths of 800 meters or greater have a 10-year initial term. The FNOS incorporates these requirements, as well as the Form BOEM 2005 (February 2017) lease form and most stipulations from Lease Sale 254 held in 2020, which were also legislatively mandated for BBG1 and future lease sales occurring pursuant to the OBBBA.

With respect to the Rice’s whale, an endangered species with its exclusive habitat in the GOA, the Lease Sale 254 Protected Species Stipulation applicable to BBG1 contains no provisions specific to protecting the Rice’s whale. However, the Information to Lessees document provided as part of the BBG1 FNOS package notifies potential bidders of the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) recent programmatic Biological Opinion, issued on May 20, 2025, (2025 NMFS BiOp) and notes that “the 2025 NMFS BiOp includes a jeopardy finding for the Rice’s whale, and a reasonable and prudent alternative (2025 RPA) that is currently under review and discussion at the Department, Bureaus, and NMFS.” While the 2025 NMFS BiOp is not mentioned in the stipulation, BOEM advises bidders that “under the 2025 NMFS BiOp, certain post-lease approvals (e.g., for activities involving new and unusual technologies, certain tiers of seismic surveys, including certain ancillary geological and geophysical [G&G] surveys), will require an ESA [Endangered Species Act] review by BOEM, and applicable protocols and/or COAs [Conditions of Approval] will be applied per the 2025 NMFS BiOp, subject to additional mitigations to protect ESA-listed species.” BOEM further advises that amendments to the 2025 NMFS BiOp and related permit conditions will be binding on future lease actions for leases issued pursuant to BBG1.

Leases issued in BBG 1 may include Royalty Suspension Volumes (RSVs), which are designed to promote development, increase production, or encourage production of marginal resources on certain leases or categories of leases. Details relating to eligibility and implementation of RSVs are located at 30 CFR part 203.

Bid opening for BBG1 will be available for public viewing on BOEM’s website at https://www.boem.gov/Sale-BBG1 via live-streaming video beginning at 9:00 a.m. on December 10th.

For more information, contact Liskow attorneys Jana Grauberger and Kathleen Doody, and visit Liskow’s Energy-Regulatory practice page.

Louisiana is experiencing significant LNG plant construction activity, with several projects underway or recently approved. Construction projects in Louisiana are governed by a unique statutory framework known as the Louisiana Private Works Act (“LPWA”). The LPWA establishes the rights and responsibilities of all parties involved in construction projects. The primary goal of the LPWA is to protect payment rights for those who contribute labor, materials, or services to a project.

Under the LPWA, subcontractors, laborers, material suppliers, lessors, and professional consultants have a personal claim against the property owner and general contractor. The claim against the owner is secured by a legal privilege affecting the immovable property where the work is performed.

Property owners also have safeguards under the LPWA. Owners can limit their potential exposure by requiring the general contractor to file a notice of contract in accordance with La. R.S. 9:4811 and furnish a bond for the price of the work. The notice of contract must be filed before the work begins, as defined in La. R.S. 9:4820. When properly issued, the bond serves as substitute security for unpaid claimants, thereby protecting the property from being directly encumbered.

The LPWA provides valuable protections but also imposes strict deadlines for asserting those rights. Importantly, these deadlines are peremptive, meaning a claimant’s rights are extinguished if not timely asserted, and that period cannot be suspended or interrupted. Louisiana courts strictly construe the LPWA because it creates rights and remedies not found under ordinary contract law.

To preserve LPWA protections, claimants must strictly comply with the precise notice requirements. These requirements vary depending on the type of claimant and whether the owner filed a notice of contract as discussed in La. R.S. 9:4804. The privilege arises and becomes effective against third persons once the notice of contract is filed or once work begins, as defined in La. R.S. 9:4820.

A claimant risks losing all rights under the LPWA if:

1.  The claimant or holder of the privilege does not preserve it by failing to file a statement of claim and privilege as required by R.S. 9:4822;
2. The claimant or holder of the privilege does not institute an action against the owner to enforce the claim or privilege within one year after filing the statement of claim or privilege; or
3. The underlying obligation is extinguished.

Deadlines for filing a statement of claim and privilege depend on when the notice of termination is filed, or if no notice of termination was filed, when the project reaches substantial completion or abandonment. Substantial completion occurs when the last work is performed, materials are delivered, or when the owner accepts the improvement, even if minor matters remain. Abandonment occurs when the owner terminates the work or objectively and in good faith abandons the project. The determination of when substantial completion or abandonment occurred is a question of fact.

Filing a notice of termination creates a clear starting point for these deadlines and can prevent factual disputes about timing. If a claim or privilege is improperly filed or extinguished, the owner can require the claimant to send a written request for cancellation to the recorder of mortgages.

The Louisiana Private Works Act is a fundamental part of construction law in Louisiana. Whether you are a property owner seeking to protect your investments or a contractor or supplier ensuring payment for your work, strict compliance with the LPWA’s notice and timing requirements is crucial.

For further questions regarding the Louisiana Private Works Act or related topics, contact Liskow attorneys Hunter Chauvin and Katelyn Davis.

In late October 2025, Exxon Mobil Corporation filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, launching a major constitutional and regulatory challenge to California’s landmark climate disclosure regime. The company’s lawsuit targets two statutes enacted in 2023: Senate Bill 253—the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act, and Senate Bill 261—the Climate-Related Financial Risk Act, which together require large companies doing business in California to publicly report greenhouse-gas emissions and climate-related financial risks. ExxonMobil argues that these laws compel speech, force companies to adopt state-approved frameworks they may disagree with and intrude into areas governed by federal securities law.

Under SB 253, every company—public or private—with global annual revenues exceeding $1 billion and “doing business” in California must disclose its greenhouse-gas emissions across three categories. Beginning in 2026, companies must report Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, which represent direct emissions and purchased energy. Thereafter in 2027, companies must report Scope 3 emissions, which include the entire value chain both upstream and downstream. Senate Bill 261, applying to companies with more than $500 million in annual revenue, mandates a biennial climate-related financial risk report that mirrors the framework of the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD).

Before ExxonMobil’s challenge, a coalition led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce had already sued to block these same statutes, arguing they violated the First Amendment and were preempted by federal law. A California federal court denied a preliminary injunction in August 2025, allowing the rules to take effect while litigation proceeds. ExxonMobil’s new suit, however, is distinct in several ways. It is a direct action by a single regulated entity rather than an industry coalition, and it places particular emphasis on the notion of compelled speech—arguing that California’s requirement to use the GHG Protocol and similar frameworks forces ExxonMobil to “speak” in ideological terms that it otherwise rejects. The complaint also raises a sharper preemption argument, asserting that the financial-risk reporting obligations intrude into an area already occupied by federal securities regulation. The two cases are pending in different venues, potentially leading to divergent rulings.

ExxonMobil’s complaint lands in an environment where other jurisdictions are beginning to contemplate similar statutes. Several states—including New York, Illinois, Colorado, and New Jersey—have introduced bills that would emulate portions of California’s disclosure regime, setting comparable revenue thresholds and mandating climate-risk reports or Scope 1-through-3 emissions disclosures.

For companies subject to these California statutes, the practical reality is that the reporting deadlines are approaching even as the litigation unfolds. ExxonMobil’s suit raises serious constitutional questions about the line between factual disclosure and compelled advocacy, but the existence of pending challenges does not delay implementation. Companies should therefore continue developing systems to prepare the required disclosures in anticipation of enforcement beginning in 2026.

For more information regarding this case, contact Liskow attorneys Kelly Becker, Jamie Rhymes, and James Lapeze.