Description: Action brought by Minnesota against members of the fossil fuel industry for allegedly causing climate change harms by misleading the public by downplaying the threat of climate change and the role of their products in causing climate change.
Minnesota v. American Petroleum Institute
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 11/09/2020 Opposition Download Brief filed by defendants in opposition to motion to remand. 07/27/2020 Notice of Removal Download Notice of removal filed. Fossil Fuel Defendants Removed Minnesota's Climate Case to Federal Court. Fossil fuel companies and other defendants removed Minnesota's climate change-based consumer protection cases to federal court. Minnesota’s case also involves other claims, including strict liability and negligent failure to warn claims. The defendants asserted multiple grounds for removal: that the cases raise disputed and substantial federal questions, that the claims necessarily arise under federal common law, that the claims arise out of federal enclaves, that federal-officer removal applies, that jurisdiction is proper under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, that the case is removable under the Class Action Fairness Act, and that diversity citizenship creates removal jurisdiction.
State v. American Petroleum Institute
Filing Date Type File Action Taken Summary 06/24/2020 Complaint Download Complaint filed. Minnesota Filed Lawsuit Charging that Fossil Fuel Defendants’ “Campaign of Deception” Led to Climate Crisis. The State of Minnesota filed a lawsuit in state court against the American Petroleum Institute, Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon), Koch Industries, Inc. (Koch), and Exxon and Koch subsidiaries, alleging that the defendants caused a “climate-change crisis” in the state through a “campaign of deception.” The State alleged that it sought “to hold Defendants accountable for deliberately undermining the science of climate change, purposefully downplaying the role that the purchase and consumption of their products played in causing climate change and the potentially catastrophic consequences of climate change, and for failing to fully inform the consumers and the public of their understanding that without swift action, it would be too late to ward off the devastation.” The complaint asserted a claim under the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act as well as claims of strict and negligent liability for failure to warn; common law fraud and misrepresentation; deceptive trade practices under Minnesota Statutes § 325D.44; and violation of Minnesota’s False Statement in Advertising Act. Minnesota asked the court to order the defendants to publish all research conducted by the defendants and their agents that relates to climate change and to “fund a corrective public education campaign in Minnesota relating to the issue of climate change.” In addition, Minnesota sought civil penalties, restitution “to remedy the great harm and injury to the State resulting from Defendants’ unlawful conduct,” and disgorgement of profits resulting from unlawful conduct. In addition, Minnesota asked the court to award attorney’s fees and other costs of investigation and litigation.