The Climate Cover-Up: Seeking Compensation for Corporate Deception

In this CLX webinar, Ben Franta discusses the fossil fuel industry’s historical knowledge of climate change, its public messaging about climate risks, and U.S. lawsuits seeking to hold companies accountable for alleged deception and climate related costs. The conversation covers internal company documents, legal claims brought by states and local governments, climate attribution science, corporate defenses, and the potential significance of discovery.

Franta describes warnings to the industry dating back to the 1950s and internal research conducted by companies in later decades. He highlights a 1979 Exxon memo examining how to avoid a buildup of carbon dioxide and discusses company projections of warming and its impacts. These documents, he explains, help establish what companies understood when they made public statements about climate change. (Around 6:20–16:10)

Franta identifies three broad strategies: emphasizing uncertainty in climate science; presenting controls on fossil fuels as economically costly while downplaying the costs of climate change; and promoting measures he argues could preserve fossil fuel use while appearing to address the problem. His examples include natural gas, efficiency improvements, carbon offsets, and later messaging about carbon capture. (Around 19:00–25:40)

The conversation focuses on lawsuits brought by U.S. states and local governments seeking to recover costs associated with climate impacts, including adaptation expenses. It also covers consumer protection claims concerning allegedly misleading statements about fossil fuel products or companies’ climate activities. Franta discusses public nuisance claims and, in the Puerto Rico litigation, claims under the federal RICO statute. (Around 26:00–33:20)

Franta describes several questions: how much climate change intensified a particular impact, what costs followed, and what share of responsibility might be attributed to a defendant. Climate attribution research, damage estimates, and emissions accounting can inform those questions. Connecting deception to additional harm presents a further challenge; Franta discusses comparing what happened with a scenario in which companies had disclosed what they knew. He notes that there is no standard method for making that comparison. (Around 38:00–45:30)

Discovery may give plaintiffs access to additional corporate records concerning climate research, public messaging, and efforts to influence policy. Franta compares its potential role to the release of internal documents in tobacco litigation: the records could affect both the legal claims and public understanding of the industry’s conduct. (Around 35:45–37:55)

Franta discusses arguments that climate risks were already common knowledge, that certain company statements are protected speech, and that federal law prevents some state law claims. He also explains disputes over whether the cases should proceed in state or federal court. The webinar describes these arguments as they stood at the time of the conversation. (Around 45:35–52:05)

The conversation is useful for climate litigators, researchers, advocates, journalists, and students seeking an introduction to U.S. climate deception litigation. It is particularly relevant to readers examining internal industry documents, consumer protection claims, climate attribution, and claims for the costs of climate impacts.