ExxonMobil, one of the world’s largest energy producers, has filed a federal lawsuit against the State of California, challenging two groundbreaking laws that require major companies to disclose detailed information about their greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related financial risks. The company claims these laws are unconstitutional and exceed the state’s authority, marking another flashpoint in the growing clash between the fossil fuel industry and state-led climate regulation efforts.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, specifically targets Senate Bill 253 (SB 253) and Senate Bill 261 (SB 261)—two key pillars of California’s aggressive climate disclosure regime signed into law in 2023 by Governor Gavin Newsom.
According to Exxon’s complaint, these measures compel private companies to “parrot the government’s views” on climate change and effectively act as “mouthpieces for political ideology,” violating the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The company also argues that California is attempting to impose its climate policies on businesses nationwide, creating regulatory confusion and conflicts with existing federal securities laws that already require certain environmental risk disclosures for publicly traded firms.
What California’s Climate Disclosure Laws Require
Under SB 253, any business with more than $1 billion in annual revenue that operates in California must publicly report its full greenhouse gas emissions starting in 2026. This includes not only the emissions produced directly from company operations (“Scope 1”) and purchased energy (“Scope 2”) but also indirect emissions generated across the company’s supply chains and by customers using its products (“Scope 3”).
SB 261, meanwhile, applies to companies with over $500 million in annual revenue, requiring them to disclose climate-related financial risks and explain how they plan to manage or mitigate those risks. These reports would need to follow established frameworks, such as those developed by the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), ensuring that investors and the public have access to standardized and comparable information.
California lawmakers and environmental advocates have championed these measures as essential tools for corporate accountability. They argue that greater transparency will help investors, consumers, and policymakers better understand how major corporations contribute to climate change and how prepared they are for a future shaped by environmental regulation and physical climate impacts.
Governor Gavin Newsom described the disclosure bills as “a major step toward aligning corporate behavior with California’s climate goals,” emphasizing that data-driven transparency can accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy.
Exxon’s Arguments Against the Laws
ExxonMobil, however, sees things differently. In its complaint, the Texas-based energy giant maintains that California’s requirements amount to compelled speech—forcing companies to express the state’s views on climate policy, risk, and responsibility. Exxon asserts that the state’s mandates intrude on its corporate speech rights and violate constitutional protections against government overreach.
The company also warns that compliance with the new rules will be both burdensome and costly, particularly because of the difficulty in accurately measuring Scope 3 emissions, which can span thousands of suppliers and millions of product users. Exxon has long resisted calls for such reporting, arguing that these estimates are highly speculative and risk misleading the public.
Furthermore, Exxon contends that California’s climate reporting laws conflict with federal securities regulations administered by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC already requires that publicly traded companies disclose material risks—including environmental and climate-related ones—when they are likely to affect financial performance. Exxon argues that California’s additional rules create a “patchwork of conflicting mandates” that could expose companies to lawsuits and reputational harm if their disclosures differ between state and federal filings.
Broader Implications and Industry Reaction
California’s climate disclosure laws have drawn both praise and criticism since their passage. Major corporations such as Apple, Microsoft, and Ikea publicly supported the measures, saying they reflect a growing corporate commitment to sustainability and align with global reporting trends.
On the other hand, powerful business and agricultural groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Farm Bureau Federation, have pushed back, labeling the rules as “onerous,” “expensive,” and “legally questionable.” They argue that the laws place disproportionate compliance costs on companies that do business in California—costs that could ripple through national supply chains.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is tasked with implementing the new disclosure programs, but as of now, neither CARB nor the California Department of Justice has commented publicly on Exxon’s lawsuit.
Environmental advocates, meanwhile, view Exxon’s legal challenge as an attempt to delay or weaken climate transparency. Groups such as the Sierra Club and Environmental Defense Fund have long accused Exxon and other oil majors of underreporting their environmental impact and funding misinformation campaigns around climate science. They argue that strong disclosure requirements are vital for holding corporations accountable and for giving investors an accurate picture of climate risks.
California’s History of Environmental Leadership
This lawsuit is only the latest chapter in California’s decades-long leadership in environmental regulation. The state—home to the world’s fifth-largest economy—has consistently pushed national and global climate policy forward, from its 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act, which set aggressive emissions-reduction targets, to its vehicle fuel-efficiency standards that often exceed federal requirements.
By enacting SB 253 and SB 261, California became the first U.S. state to require corporate climate disclosures across such a wide spectrum of businesses. If upheld, these laws could become a national model, potentially influencing federal climate disclosure rules under consideration by the SEC.
What Comes Next
The outcome of ExxonMobil’s lawsuit could have significant implications for both environmental regulation and corporate governance. If the court sides with Exxon, it may limit the power of states to compel climate-related disclosures and complicate nationwide efforts to standardize corporate sustainability reporting.
Conversely, if California prevails, the decision could strengthen states’ ability to enforce transparency on climate issues and set a powerful precedent for other jurisdictions pursuing similar measures.
For now, ExxonMobil’s challenge underscores the escalating legal and political battles surrounding climate accountability—a fight that pits one of the world’s most influential oil companies against the state leading America’s clean-energy transition.
Stay up-to-date on the latest legal developments affecting corporate accountability and environmental regulation. Visit LawCrossing.com to explore legal jobs and opportunities focused on energy, environmental, and regulatory law.