Several years ago, the Connecticut Attorney General sued ExxonMobil, alleging that the company had engaged in a decades-long “systematic campaign of deception” concerning the impact of its fossil fuel products on the earth's climate and a more recent “greenwashing” campaign designed to bolster its image as an environmental steward.  ExxonMobil moved to strike CT's complaint in its entirety on several grounds, and late last month a Connecticut Superior Court denied the motion – allowing the case to continue.  Here are some of the highlights from the decision that should be of particular interest to all advertisers who are promoting the environmental benefits of their products. 

To oversimplify the allegations in the lawsuit, the Connecticut AG alleged that ExxonMobil misled consumers by not disclosing how fossil fuels harm the environment and by misrepresenting that it was taking steps that were, in fact, beneficial to the environment.  The AG alleged that ExxonMobil deceived “reasonable consumers into believing that purchasing ExxonMobil products is a responsible choice because ExxonMobil is addressing climate change by investing in alternative energy sources.”  

One of the arguments that ExxonMobil made in support of its motion to strike was that its advertising claims were not actionable because they were either expressions of opinion, aspirational statements that were not false or misleading, or not material. 

While the court acknowledged that some of ExxonMobil's statements may be non-actionable statements of opinion, the court didn't think – at the motion to strike stage – that it was able to make that determination.  The court also indicated that the Connecticut AG had sufficiently alleged that ExxonMobil had made misrepresentations about statements of fact as well.  The court explained, “the statements at issue in the complaint include statements that the defendant allegedly knew were untrue, such as climate change was a ‘lie’ or a ‘myth,' that concerns about climate change were unsupported by science and that the use of fossil fuels had little to do with climate change.  The complaint alleges that these statements contradicted [ExxonMobil's] own scientific research on these questions." 

ExxonMobil argued that its aspirational claims were not actionable because it had no duty to disclose the impact of its products on climate change and because the statements were not likely to mislead consumers since ExxonMobil is “widely known for its fossil fuel business and the relationship between fossil fuels and climate change is also now well known.”  The court didn't buy these arguments either.  First, noting that it was a legal question whether there is a duty to disclose the information, the court wrote that “the fact and circumstances alleged in the complaint, if proved, are sufficient to give rise to such a duty.”   Second, regarding ExxonMobil's argument that it couldn't mislead consumers about information they are already aware of, the court held that whether ExxonMobil's advertising was likely to mislead reasonable consumers needed to be determined by a factfinder; it wasn't something that could be resolved at the motion to strike stage. 

On the question of whether ExxonMobil's statements were materially misleading, the court again thought that this issue needed to be decided by a factfinder.  The court noted, “It is fair to be skeptical that consumers would choose to purchase gasoline from a defendant based on an erroneous impression that the defendant is proactively and earnestly engaged in efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the development of alternative energy sources and other more eco-friendly fossil fuel products.  It is not a question of reliance by the consumer, however, only a question of whether the consumer is influenced by the defendant's allegedly misleading environmental marketing.”  

What's most important about this case (and others like it) is how the reasoning in the complaint could be applied to almost any advertiser.  For any company that causes any environmental harm, cases like this raise the question about whether you've got an affirmative obligation to disclose the harm that you are causing – or whether you've at least got an obligation, when talking about the environmental efforts you are making, to put them in context.  

State of Connecticut v. ExxonMobil Corporation, 2025 WL 3459468 (Conn. Super. Ct., Hartford Jud. Dist. 2025).