When “Net Zero” Meets the Courtroom: Energy Companies and the Rise of Greenwashing Litigation

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.