Municipalities of Puerto Rico v. Exxon Mobil Corporation

A Climate Crisis Fueled by Deception

Scientific evidence has long established that rising greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change, intensifying extreme weather events (IPCC, 2014; Lüthi et. al, 2008; Hausfather, 2019;  NOAA, 2022). In a complaint filed in 2023, sixteen Puerto Rican municipalities allege that fossil fuel companies—including ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, BP, ConocoPhillips, and others—were aware of the risks associated with carbon-based products as early as the 1960s, when their own internal research confirmed the link between carbon emissions and global warming (¶305). The plaintiffs allege that, rather than taking steps to mitigate potential climate harms (¶350), these companies instead engaged in a coordinated disinformation campaign to cast doubt on climate science and prevent regulation of the carbon industry (¶343).

By the time Hurricanes Irma and Maria devastated Puerto Rico in 2017, the impacts of climate change were undeniable (Ramos-Scharrón et. al., 2021). Warmer ocean waters were making storms more intense, while rising sea levels amplified coastal flooding. Yet, according to the lawsuit, Puerto Rico was left unprepared for the devastating storms of 2017 and their aftermath. The lawsuit claims carbon majors knowingly engaged in acts, omissions, and deception that misled consumers represented by the Municipalities. As a result, the Municipalities and their citizens were allegedly deprived of the crucial information needed to properly prepare for extreme storms. Had this information been accessible, the Municipalities could have taken critical measures to mitigate the devastation of the 2017 hurricanes, reducing loss of life, infrastructure damage, and prolonged hardship for residents.

The Role of Industry Associations  and Propaganda

The class action lawsuit brought by the sixteen municipalities of Puerto Rico alleges that fossil fuel companies funneled money into organizations designed to spread misinformation, like the Global Climate Coalition (GCC) and the Information Council for the Environment (ICE) (¶363). According to the complaint, these groups hired industry-friendly scientists, ran deceptive advertising campaigns, and influenced public opinion to create doubt about climate change—even as they took private measures to protect their own assets. At the same time, the complaint states that the defendants invested billions in offshore platforms, studying climate change to safeguard their infrastructure. Their efforts included raising and reinforcing platforms to withstand rising sea levels and stronger storms, as well as developing patented technology to extract oil and gas from areas once inaccessible due to polar ice sheets.

These fossil fuel companies also allegedly played an integral role in deceiving consumers, the media, policymakers, and the public about the potentially ‘catastrophic’ impacts of climate change, lobbying against emissions regulations and promoting continued reliance on oil, gas, and coal (¶562). The complaint alleges that these efforts not only delayed meaningful climate action but also directly worsened the disasters in Puerto Rico. By accelerating climate change, they contributed to warming ocean waters and rising atmospheric temperatures, which in turn acted as “rocket fuel” for the 2017 hurricanes (¶209).

The Cost to Puerto Rico

Puerto Rico has suffered billions of dollars in climate-related damages, from infrastructure destruction to public health crises (¶219). Additionally, climate-related damage to Puerto Rico’s coastal ecosystems, which under normal circumstances serve an important buffering function, has weakened those ecosystems’ ability to mitigate climate change’s worst impacts. Among these are coral reefs, which serve as natural barriers against storm surges. However, these reefs have been devastated by rising ocean temperatures, increased acidity, and extreme weather events like Hurricanes Irma and Maria. With an average economic value of over a billion dollars per year, the reefs support the island’s tourism industry while protecting lives and valuable coastal infrastructure by reducing heavy swells during storms (FEMA, 2018). Meanwhile, unprecedented Sargassum seaweed blooms—another consequence of warming waters—are suffocating marine life and causing economic distress for coastal communities (Coto, 2022).  

The class action lawsuit seeks to hold these corporations accountable for their deceptive business tactics – including discrediting scientific consensus, spreading deception about their products’ impacts, and hiding behind trade groups and “green sheened” organizations – while demanding compensation for the harm caused and an end to the industry’s continued efforts to mislead the public. Similar cases have been filed across the U.S., but this suit is unique in its reliance on the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, typically used to prosecute organized crime, in addition to other established bodies of law such as tort law.

Seeking Remedy 

The plaintiffs bring multiple causes of action against the defendants, alleging a broad scheme of fraud, conspiracy, racketeering, antitrust violations, and public harm. They claim the defendants engaged in consumer fraud by misleading the public about the risks of fossil fuels, conspired to suppress climate science, and violated Puerto Rico’s laws against deceptive business practices. They further allege violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), arguing that the defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering –  “a set of illegal activities aimed at commercial profit that may be disguised as legitimate business deals” – to deceive the public and manipulate the energy market. The complaint also includes antitrust claims, which assert, inter alia, that the defendants colluded to restrain trade.

Additionally, the plaintiffs argue that the defendants’ actions created both public and private nuisances, substantially interfering with public health and property enjoyment. They further claim strict liability and negligence, asserting that fossil fuel products are defectively designed and that the defendants failed to warn the Municipalities of Puerto Rico and their citizens of foreseeable climate risks. Lastly, the plaintiffs seek restitution for unjust enrichment, alleging that the Municipalities of Puerto Rico have been forced to bear the financial burden of the defendants’ harmful conduct.

It is notable that the plaintiffs are not seeking to halt the defendants’ fossil fuel production, nor asking the court to mandate that they reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, they are requesting the disgorgement of profits gained through the defendants’ alleged wrongful conduct and both punitive and compensatory damages (of at least $75,000). They are seeking a minimum claim of $75,000 from all defendants jointly and severally, meaning each defendant is responsible for the full amount, either together or individually. If one defendant cannot pay, the others may be required to cover the difference. Plaintiffs demand compensation for past, present, and future costs incurred as a result of the defendants’ actions, including expenses related to the wrongful deaths of those who perished from the severe storms of 2017.

Applying a developed body of law in the context of climate change

This case relies on well-established principles of tort law, including public nuisance and strict liability. As with other lawsuits aimed at holding corporations accountable for harm, the municipalities argue that those responsible for causing damage and/or failing to warn of the known and foreseeable risks of climate change acceleration associated with the use of fossil fuel products, should bear the costs of damage associated with such products. The complaint alleges that fossil fuel companies engaged in a decades-long campaign of deception, misleading and failing to warn the public about the climate risks of their products while continuing to profit from them.

As the case moves forward, the plaintiffs seek to prove that these companies’ actions directly contributed to the devastation of the 2017 hurricane season and subsequent climate-induced disasters by increasing greenhouse gas emissions, making them liable for the enormous costs the Municipalities and their residents continue to bear.

Affirming country / corporate responsibility for their ‘fair share’ of emission reductions, regardless of the actions of other countries or corporations.

The lawsuit quantifies the percentage of global GHG emissions attributable to nearly all named defendants from 1965 to 2017. It further measures these companies’ carbon contributions by estimating the metric tons of GHGs emitted through both the direct and indirect use of their products. The complaint relies on research that began in 1965, a pivotal year when scientists warned of the harms of GHG emissions and industry leaders, as well as policymakers, became aware of the climate impact of fossil fuels (Richard Heede, 2019). While the suit does not explicitly demand proportional GHG emissions reductions from fossil fuel majors, it seeks remedy for their disproportionate contributions.

‘Fair share’ arguments, commonly invoked in climate change adaptation and loss and damage litigation, generally consist in the claim that the responsibility to mitigate climate impacts should be proportional to a party’s contributions to those impacts and the benefits derived from them. Although the doctrine is most commonly applied to countries’ emission reductions, the argument implicitly operates within this context to suggest that corporations which have played an outsized role in global emissions—and profited from fossil fuel production—bear a heightened obligation to provide redress for the harm caused.