ExxonMobil has launched a legal counteroffensive against California’s Attorney General and environmental groups, accusing them of defamation over plastic recycling claims.
At a Glance
- ExxonMobil filed a lawsuit in Texas Federal Court against California AG Rob Bonta and environmental groups
- The lawsuit alleges a “smear campaign” influenced by foreign interests and conflicting business interests
- ExxonMobil claims the criticisms have harmed its business relationships and seeks damages
- Environmental groups and California’s DOJ dismiss the lawsuit as an intimidation tactic
ExxonMobil’s Legal Counterattack
ExxonMobil Corp. has taken a bold step by filing a lawsuit against California Attorney General Rob Bonta and several environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and Surfrider Foundation. The oil giant alleges these parties orchestrated a defamation campaign against its plastic recycling strategies. Filed in Federal Court in Texas, the lawsuit accuses the defendants of damaging ExxonMobil’s reputation by branding its plastic initiative as misleading.
The legal action stems from Bonta’s original lawsuit, which claimed that ExxonMobil misrepresented the recyclability of plastics to the public. ExxonMobil’s countersuit marks a significant shift in legal tactics within the fossil fuel industry, showcasing its determination to counter negative portrayals of its environmental initiatives.
Exxon Mobil filed a lawsuit against California Attorney General Rob Bonta and several environmental groups, court records show, accusing them of defaming and disparaging the oil giant's advanced plastics recycling initiatives https://t.co/4vorUx9Di6
— Reuters (@Reuters) January 7, 2025
Allegations of Foreign Influence and Abuse of Power
ExxonMobil’s lawsuit goes beyond simple defamation claims. The company suggests a broader conspiracy involving foreign interests and abuse of public office. Michael P. Cash, representing ExxonMobil, stated, “This is a suit about a state office holder’s abuse of the public trust.”
“This is a suit about the corrupting influence of foreign money in the American legal system, and the sordid for-profit incentives and outright greed that tries to hide behind so-called public impact litigation,” ExxonMobil said.
The oil company alleges financial connections between the environmental groups and an Australian mining company, Fortescue, which competes with ExxonMobil in low carbon solutions. This claim adds a layer of complexity to the case, suggesting potential conflicts of interest among ExxonMobil’s critics.
At the heart of this legal dispute is the controversy surrounding “advanced recycling” or chemical recycling. ExxonMobil claims that criticisms of this technology by environmental groups are false and defamatory. The company owns a chemical recycling facility in Baytown, Texas, and has plans to expand its capacity.
However, chemical recycling remains a contentious technology. Critics argue that it has not met expectations, with few operational facilities in the United States. ExxonMobil contends that these criticisms have harmed its business relationships and seeks damages and an injunction to stop interference with its recycling contracts.
“There is consistent data showing that plastics recycling does not achieve a high level of recycling and that chemical recycling is not a real solution to the growing problem of plastic waste. It would be so much more productive if Exxon Mobil simply told the truth and refrained from attempting to intimidate elected officials and advocates who are working to actually solve the problem,” Judith Enck, the President of Beyond Plastic, said.
Despite ExxonMobil’s legal action, environmental groups and the California Department of Justice remain steadfast in their positions. They dismiss the lawsuit as an intimidation tactic and maintain their stance against the company’s practices.
Well, we’ll see.
