People of the State of Michigan v. BP p.l.c.

The Michigan Attorney General filed a lawsuit against four energy companies and American Petroleum Institute alleging that they engaged in a “conspiracy to delay the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy” in violation of federal and Michigan antitrust laws. The complaint alleged that defendants knew by approximately 1980 that continued reliance on fossil fuels would impose “negative externalities,” including climate change, and also were “aware that clean energy alternatives were feasible and inevitable, and emergence of these alternatives would increase competition in the transportation and primary energy markets,” reducing defendants’ and fossil fuels’ market dominance. The complaint alleged anticompetitive conduct by the defendants in the transportation sector that included shutting down their own research and development programs into vehicle electrification technologies, engaging in patent litigation to delay deployment of such technologies, and restraining the buildout of electric vehicle infrastructure such as charging stations. Alleged anticompetitive conduct directed at “primary energy” products for heating and cooling buildings included “capturing key technologies” and abandoning defendants’ own “commercially viable ventures” to suppress growth of renewable energy sources; coordinating the diversion of capital for “low carbon” energy to “infrastructure and applications that entrench fossil fuel use, such as natural gas and carbon capture”; coordinating to disseminate misleading information regarding fossil fuel risks and casting doubt on substitutes; conspiring to infiltrate and misdirect information-producing institutions to influence consumer preferences and public discourse about energy sources and climate change; and hiring hackers to undermine efforts to expose the defendants’ anticompetitive conduct. The complaint alleged that because of the defendants’ anticompetitive conduct, Michigan suffers and will continue to suffer from climate change and other negative externalities, including rising insurance premiums and depressed home values. The complaint asserted claims under the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act and under the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act. The relief sought included compensatory and trebled damages, injunctive relief, civil penalties, disgorgement of profits, and attorneys’ fees and costs.