ExxonMobil is suing California for allegedly violating its free speech rights under a pair of state laws aimed at forcing big companies to be more transparent about their climate change impact and associated financial risks.
The oil giant claims that the laws, which would require some of the largest companies in the state to publicly disclose their emissions according to internationally recognized standards, are an attempt by California to "embarrass" them into reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. ExxonMobil, however, disagrees with these methods, arguing that they could lead to double counting of indirect emissions.
The company also claims that another law requiring big companies to disclose financial risks associated with climate change is "speculative," and forces the company to engage in granular conjecture about unknowable future developments. This law would require companies earning more than $500 million in annual revenue to disclose these risks by January 2026.
ExxonMobil's move follows a pattern of lawsuits filed against the state over plastic pollution and climate change. In January, ExxonMobil sued California over "deceptive" claims made about its impact on the environment, only to be accused of defamation in response.
The company's latest suit now says it supports continued efforts to address climate change risks but refuses to label them accurately under California's law. The state regulatory agency, however, believes these laws are about transparency and has vowed to litigate vigorously to ensure public access to these facts.
Under the Biden administration, similar rules have been proposed at the federal level by the SEC. However, those rules were weakened after facing industry pushback over requirements for indirect emissions disclosure.
The oil giant claims that the laws, which would require some of the largest companies in the state to publicly disclose their emissions according to internationally recognized standards, are an attempt by California to "embarrass" them into reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. ExxonMobil, however, disagrees with these methods, arguing that they could lead to double counting of indirect emissions.
The company also claims that another law requiring big companies to disclose financial risks associated with climate change is "speculative," and forces the company to engage in granular conjecture about unknowable future developments. This law would require companies earning more than $500 million in annual revenue to disclose these risks by January 2026.
ExxonMobil's move follows a pattern of lawsuits filed against the state over plastic pollution and climate change. In January, ExxonMobil sued California over "deceptive" claims made about its impact on the environment, only to be accused of defamation in response.
The company's latest suit now says it supports continued efforts to address climate change risks but refuses to label them accurately under California's law. The state regulatory agency, however, believes these laws are about transparency and has vowed to litigate vigorously to ensure public access to these facts.
Under the Biden administration, similar rules have been proposed at the federal level by the SEC. However, those rules were weakened after facing industry pushback over requirements for indirect emissions disclosure.
. I get that they're not gonna love being forced to spill their emissions beans, but come on, it's about transparency and keeping us informed about the risks we're facing 
. The fact that they're trying to argue that these laws will lead to double counting is just so... shady 
. And as for the financial risks law, I'm like "dude, climate change is real" 
. Can't they just provide some basic info about what's going on? It's not like it's gonna break them financially 
can't they just be transparent about their own impact? it's not like they're hiding something from the public. and now they're trying to sue california for "embarrassing" them into changing? newsflash, guys: climate change is a real thing and we need to know what big corps are doing to help or hurt the planet 
.
like, isn't it time they owned up to their role in climate change? 
it's not like it's gonna kill 'em or anythin' 
anyway, i hope california wins this lawsuit lol 
It seems like ExxonMobil's just trying to slow down the conversation about climate change. And honestly, it's hard not to see some hypocrisy here - they're profiting from fossil fuels while claiming to support addressing climate change risks 
.
. The SEC has proposed federal regulations that would help avoid this issue, but of course, industry pushback is always at play 
.
. It's not about "embarrassing" companies into action; it's about holding them accountable for their impact on the world 
I wish more parents would talk to their kids about climate change and sustainability instead of just leaving them with a big oil company's profits 
California has a right to know what companies like ExxonMobil are doing (or not doing) for the environment. if big corps can't handle a little bit of transparency, maybe they shouldn't be making profits from fossil fuels in the first place 
. ExxonMobil thinks it's being "embarrassed" into reducing its emissions, but really it's just trying to stonewall the truth and avoid taking responsibility for its own environmental damage. This law is about transparency, not some kind of emotional manipulation – they just don't want to admit how bad their carbon footprint is 
. This just feels like another example of corporate special interest trying to water down regulations and stifle the conversation about climate change 
I feel so frustrated reading about ExxonMobil trying to undermine California's efforts to be more transparent about climate change... it's like they're not taking responsibility for their own impact on the environment 
. Either way, it's not fair to the people of California who are already feeling the effects of climate change 
. Can't we all just work together to create a more sustainable future? 
. ExxonMobil's claims about "double counting" and being forced to make "granular conjecture" just seem like fancy ways of saying they don't want to be held accountable for their actions 
. I mean, what's the harm in telling people how much CO2 your company is pumping out? It's not like you're going to start flying around on a unicorn or something 
. If they really cared about free speech, they'd be using their platform to spread the truth about climate change instead of trying to silence people who are trying to hold them accountable 
. So let's not get distracted by all the fancy legal jargon – at the end of the day, it's all about taking responsibility for our actions and being honest with each other 
.
, just think about it, a big oil company like ExxonMobil is going up against state laws that want to make them more transparent about their climate impact 
. Like, isn't climate change a major issue that affects everyone? Shouldn't companies be held accountable for their carbon footprint? The fact that they're trying to dodge the truth by claiming these laws are an "embarrassment" tactic feels pretty weak. And let's not forget that plastic pollution is a huge problem too 
They're claiming that these laws are meant to "embarrass" them, but I think it's actually just a way for them to hide something 
. The fact that they're suing California again is just another example of how they don't want to take responsibility for their actions.
. If we can't trust them to be honest about their emissions and financial risks, how are we supposed to make informed decisions about our own actions? 
. I get that it can be uncomfortable to talk about, but at what cost? Our planet is literally burning 
.
. We want to see real action and transparency from corporations like ExxonMobil.
. Let's hope California's regulatory agency can fight this one in court 
!
The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that these laws are actually a necessary step towards holding corporations accountable for their actions.
. It makes sense for companies to have a handle on their potential climate change costs, but is it really too much to ask for some transparency? I think the state regulatory agency has a point here - we need to know what's going on behind closed doors.