The Liberty Daily 
(The Daily Caller)—A New York appeals court handed three of America’s biggest oil companies another legal victory Thursday, rejecting New York City’s attempt to hold them liable for allegedly misleading consumers about the environmental benefits of fossil fuels.
The New York Supreme Court’s Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit accusing ExxonMobil, Shell and BP of deceptive advertising. The Thursday ruling marks another setback in a yearslong legal battle over whether energy companies can be held responsible for their environmental marketing claims.
“While the reasonable consumer standard appears to be better supported in current law than the more subjective standard urged by the City, we need not resolve this issue to decide this appeal,” read the appellate opinion.”Under either standard, the City’s claim that defendants engaged in product greenwashing cannot stand.”
“The City cannot have it both ways,” the lower court ruled in January 2025, according to Thursday’s appellate decision. The court had found that New York could not argue consumers already understood the connection between fossil fuels and climate change while simultaneously claiming they were deceived because oil companies failed to disclose that connection.
The lawsuit, originally filed in April 2021 under former Democratic Mayor Bill de Blasio, accused the companies of “greenwashing,” a practice in which businesses allegedly exaggerate their environmental credentials to appeal to climate-conscious customers.
New York City argued that advertisements for ExxonMobil’s Synergy fuels, Shell’s V-Power Nitro+ gasoline and BP’s Invigorate fuel additive misled consumers by promoting cleaner-burning products without emphasizing that gasoline still produces greenhouse gas emissions.
ExxonMobil and BP each did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s requests for comment. Shell did not provide a comment on the record by time of publication.
The appellate judges rejected that argument, finding that the companies advertised potential improvements over conventional gasoline rather than promising that their products would eliminate emissions altogether.
The court also rejected the city’s claims that the companies exaggerated their investments in renewable energy. The judges found that statements promoting clean energy initiatives were not sufficiently connected to the sale of consumer goods or services to violate the city’s Consumer Protection Law.
The decision follows a January 2025 ruling by New York Supreme Court Justice Anar Patel — an appointee of Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul — who dismissed the lawsuit after concluding that the challenged advertising did not constitute deceptive trade practices.
The case was not New York City’s first attempt to take major oil producers to court over climate change.
In 2018, the city sued several energy companies seeking compensation for climate-related damages. A federal appeals court upheld dismissal of that lawsuit in 2021, concluding that state tort law could not be used to hold multinational oil companies liable for damages attributed to global greenhouse gas emissions.
Just three weeks after that defeat, New York City filed the greenwashing lawsuit, shifting its legal strategy from seeking compensation for climate damages to challenging how energy companies advertised their products.
The ruling adds to a series of legal setbacks involving government efforts to hold major oil companies financially responsible for climate change.
In September, a Biden-appointed federal judge dismissed Michigan’s antitrust lawsuit against BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell and the American Petroleum Institute, finding the state’s alleged financial injuries too speculative to establish antitrust standing.
New York has faced separate legal challenges over its climate policies. In August, a federal judge appointed by former President Barack Obama blocked the state’s $75 billion climate superfund law, which sought to make major fossil fuel producers pay for infrastructure projects addressing climate-related damage.
Thursday’s decision also comes just days after the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Suncor Energy v. Boulder, a closely watched dispute over whether federal law prevents state courts from imposing liability on energy companies for alleged climate harms linked to interstate and global emissions.
The appellate judges also distinguished New York City’s lawsuit from greenwashing cases in Connecticut, Vermont, Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., finding that the city’s Consumer Protection Law places narrower limits on which corporate statements can be challenged. Unlike the broader statutes cited in those cases, the city’s law requires the alleged deception to be connected to the sale of consumer goods or services.
“Not even the least sophisticated consumer could be led to believe that, by using the advertised gasoline products, he or she would be able to drive a vehicle without producing a significant amount of emissions,” the appellate court concluded.
