Commonwealth v. Exxon Mobil Corp.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed a trial court’s denial of Exxon Mobil Corporation’s (Exxon’s) special motion to dismiss the Massachusetts Attorney General’s enforcement action alleging that Exxon’s communications with investors and consumers related to climate change constituted unfair and deceptive practices. Exxon filed the special motion under Massachusetts’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) law, which protects parties exercising their right of petition. The Supreme Judicial Court held that the anti-SLAPP law did not apply to government enforcement actions brought by the Attorney General. The court found that this interpretation was grounded in the statutory language, the rules of construction applicable to enforcement of statutes against the Commonwealth, and the legislative history and purpose of the anti-SLAPP law.

Filing Year For Action

Exxon Mobil Corporation filed a brief in its appeal of a Massachusetts state trial court’s denial of Exxon’s special motion to dismiss the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ action alleging that Exxon systematically and intentionally misled investors and consumers about climate change. Exxon filed the special motion to dismiss under the Massachusetts anti-SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) statute. In its appeal, Exxon argued that by denying its motion despite recognizing that some statements challenged by the Commonwealth constituted petitioning activity, the court’s decision “jeopardizes foundational First-Amendment protections.” Exxon argued that its statements were “made to influence policymakers and the public on energy policy” and therefore fell within the definition of petitioning. In addition, Exxon argued that the trial court improperly focused on Exxon’s “motive for speaking rather than on the basis of the Commonwealth’s claims.” Exxon also contended that the trial court erred by holding that the anti-SLAPP law protects only statements, and not omissions—Exxon asserted the “omissions” in this case related to Exxon’s “refusal to adopt the Commonwealth’s preferred viewpoints on climate change” and that the Commonwealth could not use this case to compel Exxon “to publicly advocate for the Commonwealth’s views on the exigency of climate change or the merits of energy policy [Exxon] does not support.” Exxon further argued that the trial court should have at least dismissed the Commonwealth’s claims to the extent the claims related to statements the court recognized as petitioning activity.

Filing Year For Action

The federal district court for the District of Massachusetts issued a decision explaining the rationale for its March 18, 2020 order remanding Massachusetts’s fraud case against Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon) to state court. In its lawsuit, Massachusetts asserts causes of action under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act based on allegations that Exxon knew for decades that greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels were contributing to climate change, that Exxon downplayed the risks of climate change, and that Exxon deceived investors and consumers with misrepresentations concerning the company’s products and its management of climate change risks. The district court found that Massachusetts’s well-pleaded complaint pleaded only state law claims, “which are not completely preempted by federal law and do not harbor an embedded federal question.” In doing so, the court rejected Exxon’s contention that federal common law governed and completely preempted state law claims; the court found that the complaint’s allegations were “far afield of any ‘uniquely federal interests.’” The court also rejected Exxon’s arguments that the federal-officer removal statute or the Class Action Fairness Act provided a basis for jurisdiction.

During a telephonic hearing on March 17, 2020, the federal district court for the District of Massachusetts denied Exxon Mobil Corporation’s motion to remand the Massachusetts attorney general’s consumer protection action alleging a failure to disclose climate risks and misleading marketing of products. The court reportedly said that this was “not a case where the issue is in any substantial doubt.” The judge indicated he would issue a written opinion at a later date. The court denied Exxon’s request that it stay the order pending appeal.

On December 26, 2019, Massachusetts moved to remand its action against Exxon Mobil Corporation under the State’s consumer protection law back to state court. Massachusetts asserted that its complaint focused solely on alleged violations of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act and did not raise any federal claims. The attorney general argued that all of Exxon’s bases for removal were “implausible” and had no support in law or fact not only because the complaint alleged only violations of a single state law but also because the claims did not require the disposition of any federal issue, did not arise under federal common law, did not involve action by Exxon taken under the direction of a federal officer or agency, and did not constitute a “class action” under the Class Action Fairness Act. The attorney general also said the federal court should ignore Exxon’s allegations of conspiracy—which the attorney general characterized as “unsupported innuendo”—as a basis for removal and instead focus on the “four corners” of the complaint.