Developments in ESG litigation - 2025

Previous updates

• June

  German Court delivers judgment in Lliuya climate damages case

  On 28 May, the higher regional court of Hamm ruled on the climate case brought by Peruvian farmer Lliuya against RWE, initiated in 2015. The farmer claimed that the energy company must make a pro rata contribution to flood protection measures for his property due to climate-induced glacier flooding risks. The court ruled that, under German tort law, companies can in principle be held legally liable for the damages caused by their contribution to climate change. Those responsible for CO₂ emissions may be obliged to take measures to prevent a threat of damages resulting from these emissions, or pay for these costs in proportion to their share of emissions, even before actual damage occurs. The large distance between the company’s power plants in Germany and the plaintiff’s residence in Peru do not preclude such a claim. The defendant could also not invoke its public service obligation to justify interference with the property of the Peruvian plaintiff. Not all citizens will be liable for their emissions towards each other, as a single person’s emissions are too insignificant to incur liability. The court dismissed the farmer’s claim based on the facts of the case, ruling that the risk of floodwater damage is well below 1% and therefore does not meet the legal threshold.

  EU Ombudsman opens inquiry over Omnibus

  On 21 May, the Ombudsman opened an inquiry into a complaint by NGOs relating to the decision-making process of the Omnibus sustainability proposals. The complaint argues that the EC did not comply with the better regulation guidelines and did not carry out a climate consistency assessment, as required under the EU Climate Law. The Ombudsman will now inspect relevant documents and meet with Commission staff. While the Ombudsman cannot reverse decisions by EU institutions, it may issue recommendations up to a special report to the European Parliament, which must then take appropriate action. If the Commission accepts the Ombudsman recommendations, this may delay the Omnibus package by several months.

  EFTA issues advisory opinion on assessment of oil projects’ scope 3 emissions

  On 21 May, the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Court issued an advisory opinion requested by a Norwegian court of appeal on the assessment of scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions arising from new oil field projects. The EFTA Court has jurisdiction over Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway that largely corresponds to the EU Court of Justice over EU Member States. The original case was brought by NGOs against the Norwegian State in relation to its approvals of three petroleum and natural gas extraction projects in the North Sea. The Court found that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive requires states to consider the effects of an oil project’s scope 3 GHG emissions before approving it. The consideration must involve public participation. National courts must eliminate the unlawful consequences if a state does not carry out a full EIA. The opinion follows an temporary order to halt the development of the three oil and gas fields by the Norwegian Supreme Court. The Norwegian court of appeal must now decide the case based on the Court’s interpretation of the EIA Directive.

  Australian energy company rectifies carbon offset claims

  On 19 May, Australian energy company EnergyAustralia published a statement to settle a greenwashing case initiated by an NGO in relation to a carbon offset product offered to customers. The company acknowledges that carbon offsets do not prevent or undo the harms caused by burning fossil fuels for a customer’s energy use. Even with carbon offsetting, the emissions released from burning fossil fuels for a customer’s energy use still contribute to climate change. While high quality carbon offsets may play a role for hard to abate residual emissions, organisations should provide clearly and transparently inform consumers on where and how offsets have been used and what those offsets can achieve. The company had already withdrawn its disputed carbon offset product called ‘go neutral’ in 2024.

  US beverage company agrees to revise green statements

  On 6 May, the EC announced that US beverage company Coca Cola Company will voluntarily revise its green statements on its packaging. The announcement follows an alert by the European Consumer Organisation BEUC in November 2023 against certain environmental claims on plastic bottles. The company commits to:

  • replace claims on bottle labels such as ‘I am a bottle made from 100% recycled plastic’ (with separate disclaimer: ‘bottle, not label and cap’) with more clear statements such as: ‘This bottle, excluding label and cap, is made from 100% recycled plastic’.
  • replace claims on bottle labels such as ‘Recycle me again’ with ‘Recycle me’, as the recycling process is not a closed loop.
  • ensure that the overall impression of the label and the marketing is not misleading, for instance by revising other green claims or symbols.
  • reflect these changes in digital marketing campaigns on the company’s websites and social media.
• May

  Dutch judge maintains fossil fuel and airline advertisements ban

  On 25 April, the District Court of The Hague rejected claims in summary proceedings seeking to suspend a municipal law that prohibits fossil fuel advertisements. More specifically, the law prohibits advertisements in the public space of the municipality of The Hague that promote fossil fuels, flying holidays, airline tickets, grey electricity contracts, gas contracts, cruises or cars with fossil fuel or hybrid engines. The ban aims to promote the health of residents, reduce the negative effects of climate change, and improve the environment. Based on a limited review in civil summary proceedings, the court ruled that it did not become apparent that the law contravenes higher laws or is otherwise unlawful. The ban therefore remains in place.

  ACM calls on food sector and fashion retail industry to review sustainability claims

  On 24 April, the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) sent a public letter (also in English) to companies in the Dutch food sector, calling for a review of their sustainability claims and adjustment where necessary. ACM states that the sector’s sustainability claims, labels, logos and quality marks relating to environmental aspects, working conditions or animal welfare are not always clear. The public letter aligns with ACM’s focus on sustainability claims in the food sector as announced in its supervisory agenda 2025. On 30 April, ACM and eighteen other international supervisors also sent a public letter to the fashion retail and textile industry, calling for improvement of the industry’s sustainability claims. It lists six points of attention with recommendations for improvement.

  NGOs lodge EU ombudsman complaint over Omnibus package

  On 18 April, several NGOs announced a complaint with the European Ombudsman over the Sustainability Omnibus package. The complaint accuses the EC of (i) failing to properly assess the environmental and social impacts of its proposal, (ii) ‘favour[ing] closed-door meetings dominated by oil and gas industry interests’ rather than public consultations, and (iii) failing to assess whether its proposal aligns with the EU climate neutrality target. The European Ombudsman is an independent body that investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’, among which incorrect procedures by EU institutions and bodies. While the Ombudsman cannot reverse decisions by EU institutions, it may issue recommendations up to a special report to the European Parliament, which must then take appropriate action. If the Commission accepts the Ombudsman recommendations, this may delay the Omnibus package by several months.

  Australian court fines company for greenwashing

  On 14 April, the Federal Court of Australia ruled on a greenwashing case initiated by supervisory authority ACCC against cleaning products company Clorox. The court ordered Clorox to pay a fine of AUD 8.25 million for misleading statements to consumers on the packaging of kitchen and garbage bags. While the packaging stated ‘50% Ocean Plastic Recycled’, the products were in fact made from about 50% plastic waste which had been collected from communities in Indonesia with no formal waste management systems, situated up to 50 kilometres from a shoreline, and otherwise from non-recycled plastic, processing aid and dye. The fact that the packaging stated this information on the back of the packaging in a small font did not dispel the misleading character of the statement at the front of the packaging. The company already discontinued the statements in July 2023.

  US jury orders oil company to pay USD 745 million for oil damages

  On 4 April, a Louisiana (USA) jury ordered oil company Texaco, a subsidiary of Chevron, to pay USD 744.6 million in damages to a local community for damages to the Louisiana coastal wetlands. The case was based on a local law requiring that sites used by fossil fuel companies ‘be cleared, revegetated, detoxified, and otherwise restored as near as practicable to their original condition’ after the end of operations. After around 10 years of proceedings, the jury found the company liable because it did not obtain required permits, did not clean up the sites and did not follow known best practices. Chevron announced it will appeal the verdict.

  German prosecutor imposes EUR 25 million fine on asset manager for greenwashing

  On 2 April, the public prosecutor’s office of Frankfurt am Main imposed an EUR 25 million fine for greenwashing on asset management company DWS. The prosecutor found that DWS misleadingly presented itself as sustainability ‘leader’, and that it made misleading statements on the sustainability of its investments. The fine concludes a criminal investigation since 2022 into the investment company by the German prosecutor, after DWS had already paid USD 19 million to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

• April

  NGO initiates climate case against Dutch bank

  On 28 March, NGO Friends of the Earth Netherlands (Milieudefensie) delivered its writ of summons (in Dutch) to Dutch bank ING. It also published a short summary (also in English) and a long summary (also in English) of the writ. The case is brought at the District Court of Amsterdam. The court will take the first procedural step on 16 April 2025. In short, based on Dutch tort law, the NGO claims that the bank:

  • Reduce its total operational, financed and facilitated absolute CO2 emissions by 48% by 2030, 65% by 2035, 80% by 2040 and 99% by 2050, compared to 2019 emission levels.
  • Reduce financed and facilitated absolute emissions in certain (sub)sectors in line with scientific scenarios, and also decrease emissions intensity in these (sub)sectors.
  • Stop new financing within three months and end all financing within twelve months for companies involved in new fossil fuel projects.
  • Request climate plans from all large corporates financed by it, including intermediate scope 1-3 reduction targets towards 2050.
  • Subsidiarily, reduce its emissions by a percentage or in a manner determined by the court.

  German court declares sports brand’s climate neutral claims misleading

  On 25 March, the regional court of Nürnberg-Fürth ruled on a case brought by Deutsche Umwelthilfe against German sports clothing company Adidas for misleading advertisements. The company had stated on its company website: ‘We will be carbon neutral by 2050: Adidas is committed to a series of ambitious targets that will pave the way to carbon neutrality along our entire value chain by 2050’. The court ruled that the statement was misleading. It gave the false impression that the company would achieve the targets by reducing its own emissions, without relying on CO2 offsetting measures, which the company had planned to do. Adidas had already revised the statement in 2024.

  German court declares airline’s climate claims misleading

  On 21 March, the regional court of Cologne ruled on a case brought by Deutsche Umwelthilfe against German airline Lufthansa for misleading advertisements. Lufthansa had advertised ‘CO2 offsetting’ and offered consumers an ‘offset flight’ option. The court ruled that it was unclear for consumers how and to what extent CO2 compensation would be carried out in relation to the specific booked by the consumer. The calculation of the flight’s CO2 emissions, as well as the share of CO2 in the total climate impact, also remained unclear. The court concluded that these communications suggested to consumers that they could make their flight essentially climate-neutral with their payment, which was incorrect. The advertisements also falsely implied that Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) contributions were linked to the specific flight. The judgment follows a series of greenwashing ruling by German courts, where similar claims were also declared misleading.

  Jury orders Greenpeace to pay damages for pipeline protests

  On 18 March, a jury in Morton County ordered Greenpeace to pay over USD 660 million for its involvement in protests against an oil pipeline project in North Dakota in 2016 and 2017. The case was initiated by energy companies Energy Transfer and Dakota Access LLC. The jury found that Greenpeace incited illegal behaviour by anti-pipeline protestors, including indigenous communities, and that it defamed the company. Earlier this year, Greenpeace already initiated a counter-case (also in English) in the Netherlands based on the EU anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) Directive against the energy company, which is still ongoing.

  Hearings in case between Peruvian farmer and energy company

  In the week of 17 March, hearings took place in the case between Peruvian farmer Lliuya and German energy company RWE before the Higher Regional Court in Hamm. The Peruvian farmer claims damages from RWE, arguing that the company’ emissions contributed to the melting of Andean glaciers, which has increased flood risks to his farm. The German court is expected to rule on the significance of the flood risk on 14 April 2025, which will determine whether the case proceeds or will be dismissed.

  EU Council urges Switzerland to comply with Klimaseniorinnen judgment

  On 4 March, the European Council urged Switzerland to strengthen its response to the Klimaseniorinnen judgment by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). While the Council recognises Switzerland’s progress on implementing new climate laws, it calls for updates by relevant authorities on inter alia the implementation of climate measures, protection for vulnerable groups, and the right of standing for associations in climate cases. The updates must be provided by September 2025.

• March

  French food company settles due diligence case

  On 21 February, French food company Danone settled a case relating to its approach to plastics in its mandatory due diligence plan. The case was initiated by several NGOs in 2023 based on the French loi de vigilance. After the Paris Judicial Court ordered mediation, the food company agreed to (i) update various risks related to the use of plastic in its due diligence plan; (ii) strengthen a policy for mitigating and preventing the risks associated with the use of plastic, in particular relating to reuse solutions; (iii) publication of its plastic footprint; and (iv) annual meetings from 2025 to 2027 between the NGOs and Danone.

  Italian competition authority fines logistics group for greenwashing

  On 8 February, the Italian competition authority (Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato) fined logistics group GLS with EUR 8 million for unfair commercial practices relating to sustainability (read the full decision in Italian). The authority found the group’s sustainability initiative non-transparent and that its website statements were ambiguous. Also, payments made by customers under the mandatory sustainability program were found higher than the actual costs for the program.

  French prosecutors’ office dismisses criminal complaint against energy company

  On 7 February, the French prosecutors’ office dismissed a criminal complaint against French energy company TotalEnergies. NGOs and individuals had argued that the company should be prosecuted for its role in global warming and for related damages. While the prosecutor acknowledged the company’s GHG emissions, the allegations were found insufficiently substantiated. It found that current French criminal laws do not provide a basis for criminal prosecution of the company’s activities.

• February

  European Court of Human Rights rules on environmental pollution case

  On 30 January, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that the Italian State violated the right to life under Article 2 of the European Charter of Human Rights (ECHR) by not exercising sufficient diligence to address systematic, large-scale environmental pollution that harmed the claimants’ health. The case involved illegal dumping of waste and hazardous materials in the Campania region as of the 1990s. This judgment marks the first time that the ECtHR finds a violation of Article 2 ECHR in relation to environmental pollution. Additionally, The ECtHR ruled that the less stringent standing criteria for associations, as applied in the KlimaSeniorinnen v. Switzerland case, are limited to climate cases, and do not apply to other environmental cases.

  District Court of The Hague rules on Dutch nitrogen case

  On 22 January, the District Court of The Hague ruled that the Dutch State acts unlawfully by failing to stop the deterioration of nitrogen-sensitive nature in Natura 2000 areas in a timely manner and by not meeting statutory nitrogen targets for 2025, and, most likely, 2030. The legal proceedings were initiated by NGO Greenpeace. The Court ordered the State to ensure that 50% of the nitrogen-sensitive nature areas meet the applicable nitrogen limits by 2030 at the latest, prioritising the most urgent habitats. If the State fails to comply, it must pay EUR 10 million to Greenpeace. Due to the urgent environmental interests, the State must immediately execute the judgment regardless of any potential appeal proceedings.

  Blackrock and Tennessee reach settlement on ESG disclosures case

  On 17 January, Blackrock settled with the state of Tennessee over a lawsuit brought by the Attorney General of Tennessee regarding Blackrock’s ESG disclosures. The Attorney General alleged that Blackrock failed to adequately disclose its integration of ESG considerations into asset management decision-making, and overstated the financial benefits of its ESG-related strategies. As part of the settlement, Blackrock agreed to increase the transparency of its voting processes, implement compliance measures, and ensure that for funds focused solely on financial performance it will cast shareholder votes aimed exclusively at financial interests.

  Milieudefensie sends updated notice of liability to Dutch bank

  On 16 January, NGO Friends of the Earth Netherlands (Milieudefensie) sent an updated notice of liability to Dutch bank ING (English translation),based on the appeal judgment in Milieudefensie v. Shell. The updated claims are that the bank:

  1. 1. 1. reduces its total operational, financed and facilitated CO2 emissions with 48% by 2030, 65% by 2035, 80% by 2040 and 99% by 2050, with separate CO2-eq emissions reduction percentages, compared to 2019 emission levels
        2. reduces its financed and facilitated emissions in nine high-emitting sectors in line with scientific scenarios
        3. reduces its emissions intensity in at least two of these sectors in line with scientific scenarios
        4. stops new financing within three months, and ends all financing within twelve months, of companies starting new oil and gas projects
        5. requests climate plans including intermediate scope 1-3 reduction targets towards 2050 from all large corporates financed by ING
• January

  Montana Supreme Court upholds climate judgment
  On 18 December, the Montana Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s climate judgment in the case of 16 youth plaintiffs versus the state of Montana. The Court affirmed the unconstitutionality of two state laws that barred GHG emissions analyses in state agencies’ environmental impact assessments. Citing the ‘overwhelming scientific evidence’ of the severe consequences of climate change for the world and particularly for the state of Montana and its economy, the Court found that Montana’s constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment encompasses the right to a stable climate system. It considered that while emissions relating to energy projects in Montana may be insignificant on a global scale, they can still affect Montana’s environment and result in unconstitutional degradations thereof.

  German higher regional court confirms greenwashing judgment
  On 13 December, the Cologne Higher Regional Court upheld a judgment declaring a German airline’s climate-related statements misleading under the EU Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD). The airline had advertised ‘CO2-neutral travel’ and ‘Together we are making flying more sustainable. Offset CO2 emissions and take off’. The Court found the term ‘offset emissions’ ambiguous regarding the type and timing of compensation, and how compensation takes place. It was unclear if project donations and sustainable aviation fuel fully compensated for individual customers' flights. Explanations on linked pages were insufficient; advertisements must be complete and correct independently. The Court ruled that there is ‘no doubt’ that environmental benefit claims can influence booking behaviour, and affirmed the lower court’s order for the airline to refrain from making the contested statements.

  French NGO files greenwashing complaint against beverage company
  On 27 November, the France Nature Environnement (FNE) announced that it had filed a complaint against Coca-Cola with the Nanterre Attorney General, in relation with zero-waste claims during the Paris Olympics. FNE claims that despite promoting sustainability, Coca-Cola distributed more than six million of the beverages during the games in plastic bottles. FNE alleges that this constitutes unfair commercial practices, as the French Consumer Protection Law prohibits claims that mislead consumers regarding the environmental impact of a product.

• ESG litigation updates in 2024

  See our overview of ESG litigation updates in 2024 here.