Hearing Date: 6/20/2024 9:30 AM
Location: Court Room 2402
Judge: Price Walker, Allen

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOISCOUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISIONCITY OF CHICAGO,
Plaintiff,v.

Case No.

BP P.L.C.;
BP AMERICA INC.;
BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA INC.;
CHEVRON CORPORATION;CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.;
CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY;
CONOCOPHILLIPS;
PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY;
PHILLIPS 66;
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION;
EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION;
SHELL OIL PRODUCTS COMPANY LLC;
SHELL PLC;
SHELL USA, INC.; andAMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE,
Defendants.

2024CH01024

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

TABLE OF CONTENTSCOMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ..................................................................... 1
I.

INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1

II.

PARTIES ........................................................................................................................................ 5
A. Relevant Non-Parties: Defendants’ Agents/Front Groups.............................................. 32

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ................................................................................................ 33
IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ..................................................................................................... 36
A. Defendants Are Substantially Responsible for Causing and Accelerating Climate
Change. .................................................................................................................................. 36
B. Defendants Went to Great Lengths to Understand the Dangers Associated with Fossil
Fuel Products, and Either Knew or Should Have Known of Those Dangers. ....................... 43
C. Defendants Did Not Disclose Known Harms Associated with the Intended Use of Fossil
Fuel Products, and Instead Affirmatively Concealed Those Harms by Engaging in a
Campaign of Deception to Increase the Use of Those Products. .......................................... 65
D. Defendants Could Have Chosen to Facilitate, and Be Part of, a Lower-Carbon Future,but Instead Chose Corporate Profits and Continued Deception. ........................................... 92
E. Defendants’ Internal Actions Demonstrate Their Awareness of the Impacts of Climate
Change and Their Intent to Continue to Profit from the Unabated Use of Fossil Fuel
Products. ................................................................................................................................ 93
F. Defendants’ Actions Have Exacerbated the Costs of Adapting to and Mitigating theAdverse Impacts of the Climate Crisis. ................................................................................. 95
G. Defendants Continue to Deceive Chicago Consumers Through Misleading
Advertisements That Portray Defendants as Climate-Friendly Energy Companies andObscure Their Role in Causing Climate Change. ................................................................ 103
H. Defendants’ Concealments and Misrepresentations Regarding the Dangers of Fossil
Fuel Products Encouraged Continued Use of Fossil Fuels and Discouraged Concerted
Action on Greenhouse Gas Emissions................................................................................. 132
I.

The Effects of Defendants’ Deceit Are Ongoing. ......................................................... 134

J. The City Has Suffered, Is Suffering, and Will Continue to Suffer Injuries from
Defendants’ Wrongful Conduct. .......................................................................................... 136
CAUSES OF ACTION ............................................................................................................... 149
COUNT I STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY – FAILURE TO WARN (Against Fossil Fuel
Defendants) ................................................................................................................................. 149i

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

COUNT II NEGLIGENT PRODUCTS LIABILITY – FAILURE TO WARN (Against Fossil
Fuel Defendants) ......................................................................................................................... 155
COUNT III NEGLIGENCE (Against All Defendants) .............................................................. 160
COUNT IV PUBLIC NUISANCE (Against All Defendants) .................................................... 163
COUNT V PRIVATE NUISANCE (Against All Defendants) ................................................... 166
COUNT VI NUISANCE VIOLATIONS OF MCC § 7-28-030 (Against All Defendants) ........ 170
COUNT VII CIVIL CONSPIRACY (Against All Defendants) ................................................ 171
COUNT VII UNJUST ENRICHMENT (Against All Defendants) ............................................ 173
COUNT IX CONSUMER FRAUD—MISLEADING, UNFAIR, AND DECEPTIVE
PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF MCC § 2-25-090 (Against All Defendants) ....................... 176
COUNT X MISREPRESENTATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH SALE OR
ADVERTISEMENT OF MERCHANDISE IN VIOLATION OF MCC §§ 4-276-470, et seq.
(Against All Defendants) ............................................................................................................ 180
COUNT XI RECOVERY OF CITY COSTS OF PROVIDING SERVICES IN VIOLATION OF
MCC § 1-20-020 (Against All Defendants) ................................................................................ 183
REQUEST FOR RELIEF ........................................................................................................... 184
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ...................................................................................................... 185

ii

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff City of Chicago (“Chicago” or the “City”) brings this action against Defendants
BP p.l.c., BP America Inc., and BP Products North America Inc. (collectively, “BP”); Chevron
Corporation and Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (collectively, “Chevron”); ConocoPhillips Company,
ConocoPhillips, Phillips 66 Company, and Phillips 66 (collectively, “ConocoPhillips”); Exxon
Mobil Corporation and ExxonMobil Oil Corporation (collectively, “ExxonMobil”); Shell Oil
Products Company LLC, Shell plc, and Shell USA, Inc. (collectively, “Shell”); and the American
Petroleum Institute (“API”) (collectively, “Defendants”).
I.

INTRODUCTION
1.

For decades, the fossil fuel industry has misled consumers and the public aboutclimate change. Since at least the 1950s, its own scientists have consistently concluded that fossil
fuels produce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas pollution that can have catastrophic
consequences for the planet and its people. The industry took these internal scientific findings
seriously, investing heavily to protect its own assets and infrastructure from rising seas, stronger
storms, and other climate change impacts. Rather than warn consumers and the public, fossil fuelcompanies and their surrogates mounted a disinformation campaign to discredit the scientificconsensus on climate change; create doubt in the minds of consumers, the media, teachers, and the
public about the climate change impacts of burning fossil fuels; and delay the energy economy’stransition to a lower-carbon future. This successful climate deception campaign had the purposeand effect of inflating and sustaining the market for fossil fuels, which—in turn—drove up
greenhouse gas emissions, accelerated global warming, and brought about devastating climatechange impacts to the City of Chicago.
2.

Major members of the fossil fuel industry have known for decades that fossil

fuels—their chief products—are the primary cause of climate change and that, if unabated, climate
1

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

change could result in catastrophic impacts, including droughts, flooding, and severe weather
events that would impose enormous harms on cities such as Chicago. Despite this knowledge,
these corporations and their trade associations have embarked on tobacco-industry-style
campaigns to deceive and mislead the public about the damaging nature of their fossil fuelproducts.
3.

Defendants (save for API) (collectively “Fossil Fuel Defendants”) are large

companies in the fossil fuel industry, which advertise, promote, and sell oil, coal, and natural gas
products (collectively, “fossil fuel products”). Each Defendant funded, staffed, organized, andotherwise supported efforts to deceive the public and consumers—in and outside of Chicago—
about the role of fossil fuel products in causing the global climate crisis.
4.

The rate at which Fossil Fuel Defendants have extracted and sold fossil fuelproducts has exploded since the Second World War, as have carbon dioxide (“CO2”) and otheremissions from those products. Fossil fuel emissions—especially CO2—are far and away thedominant driver of global warming.1 The substantial majority of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas
emissions in history have occurred from the 1950s to the present, a period known as the “Great
Acceleration.”2 About three-quarters of all industrial CO2 emissions in history have occurred since

See Summary for Policymakers in Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I in the Sixth Assessment Report, INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANELON
CLIMATECHANGE(“IPCC”),
at
4-9(2021),
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf.
1

Will Steffen et al., The Trajectory of the Anthropocene: The Great Acceleration, 2 THE
ANTHROPOCENE REV. 81, 81 (2015).
2

2

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

the 1960s,3 and more than half have occurred since the late 1980s.4 The annual rate of CO2
emissions caused by fossil fuels has increased substantially since 1990.5
5.

Defendants’ awareness of the negative impacts of fossil fuel consumption almost

exactly tracks the onset of the Great Acceleration. Defendants have known since at least the 1950s
that fossil fuels produce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas (“GHG”) pollution that would
warm the planet and change our climate. Defendants’ own scientists knew as early as the 1950s
that these climate impacts would be catastrophic, and that there was only a narrow window of timein which action could be taken before the consequences became catastrophic.
6.

Rather than warn of these tremendous harms, however, Defendants mounted adisinformation campaign beginning as early as the 1970s to discredit the burgeoning scientificconsensus on climate change; deny their own knowledge of climate change-related threats; create
doubt in the minds of consumers, the media, teachers, and the public about the reality andconsequences of burning fossil fuels; and delay the necessary transition to a lower-carbon future.
7.

Defendants have further deceived customers and the public by misrepresenting theclimate impacts of their products sold in the City. In a bid to reassure consumers that purchasingthese products is good for the planet, Defendants advertise them as “cleaner,” “emissionsreducing,” and the like, while failing to disclose their harmful effects on the climate. This strategy
comes straight out of the advertising playbook of Big Tobacco, which deceptively promoted “lowtar” and “light” cigarettes as healthier smoking options, when they knew that any use of cigarettes

R.J. Andres et al., A Synthesis of Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Combustion, 9BIOGEOSCIENCES 1845, 1851 (2012).
3

4

Id.

Global Carbon Budget 2021, GLOBAL CARBON PROJECT (2021),
https://www.globalcarbonproject.org/global/images/carbonbudget/Infographic_Emissions2021.p
df.
5

3

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

was harmful. Defendants also falsely present themselves as corporate leaders in the fight against
climate change, claiming to invest substantially in low-emission technologies and zero-emission
energy sources, while their business continues to be overwhelmingly focused on fossil fuelproduction and sales.
8.

Defendant API is the oil and gas industry’s largest trade association. API, alongwith Fossil Fuel Defendants, have known for decades about the relationship between fossil fuelproducts and the catastrophic impacts of climate change. And like other Defendants, API has
spread its own deceptive advertising. Additionally, API has long served as a hub both for
Defendants to share their knowledge about the link between fossil fuel products and climatechange impacts, and for Defendants’ climate deception campaign. Indeed, much of Defendants’
climate deception campaign was planned, coordinated, and supported by API.
9.

Defendants misrepresented and concealed the hazards of fossil fuel products todeceive consumers and the public about the consequences of everyday use of fossil fuel products.
Defendants’ climate deception campaign, and aggressive promotion of the use of fossil fuelproducts while knowing the dangers associated with them, had the purpose and effect of unduly
and substantially inflating and sustaining the market for fossil fuels. Defendants’ tortious anddeceptive conduct, both individually and collectively, drove fossil fuel consumption and delayed
the transition to a lower-carbon future. This caused an enormous, foreseeable, and avoidable
increase in anthropogenic GHG emissions and accelerated global warming, bringing devastatingconsequences to the City and its people.
10.

While Defendants have promoted and profited from their deceptive conduct, theCity and its residents have spent, and will continue to spend, substantial sums to recover from theeffects of climate change. The climate change impacts that Chicago has faced and will continue to4FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

face – including more frequent and intense storms, flooding, droughts, extreme heat events, andshoreline erosion – are felt throughout every part of the City, and disproportionately in low-income
communities and communities that have historically experienced racial, social, health, andeconomic inequities. These effects of climate change require large investments to protect the City’s
people, infrastructure, environment, and natural areas.
11.

Defendants’ misconduct has resulted in tremendous harm to people, property, andthe environment in the City. Chicagoans and their families, communities, and small businesses
should not have to bear the costs of climate change alone. The companies that have profited fromthe deception campaign designed to drive profits at the expense of Chicagoans must be made to
mitigate the harms they have brought upon the City. This lawsuit seeks to hold those companies
accountable for the lies they have told and the damage they have caused.6
II.

PARTIES
12.

Plaintiff City of Chicago is a municipal corporation and a home-rule unit organizedand existing under the laws of the State of Illinois.
13.

Defendants include some of the largest oil and gas companies in the world, and anational oil and gas industry trade association. The fossil fuels produced by the defendantcompanies (and promoted by the defendant trade association) are individually and collectively
responsible for the emission of billions of tons of greenhouse gases and attendant harms to the
City.
14.

When this Complaint references an act or omission of Defendants, unlessspecifically attributed or otherwise stated, such references mean that the officers, directors, agents,
Plaintiff hereby disclaims injuries arising on federal property and those arising from Defendants’provision of non-commercial, specialized fossil fuel products to the federal government for
military and national defense purposes. Plaintiff seeks no recovery or relief attributable to theseinjuries.
65

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

employees, or representatives of Defendants committed or authorized such an act or omission, or
failed to adequately supervise or properly control or direct their employees while engaged in the
management, direction, operation, or control of the affairs of Defendants, and did so while acting
within the scope of their employment or agency.
15.

BP Entities: BP p.l.c.; BP America Inc.; and BP Products North America Inc.
a.

Defendant BP p.l.c. is a multinational, vertically integrated energy andpetrochemical public limited company registered in England and Wales, with its principal place ofbusiness in London, England. BP p.l.c. consists of three main operating segments: (1) explorationand production, (2) refining and marketing, and (3) gas power and renewables. BP p.l.c. is theultimate parent company of numerous subsidiaries, including Atlantic Richfield Company,
referred to collectively herein as the “BP Group,” which explore for and extract oil and gas
worldwide; refine oil into fossil fuel products such as gasoline; and market and sell oil, fuel, otherrefined petroleum products and natural gas worldwide. BP p.l.c.’s subsidiaries explore for oil andnatural gas under a wide range of licensing and other contractual agreements. BP p.l.c. wasformerly known as, did or does business as, and/or is the successor in liability to British Petroleum
Company, British Petroleum Company p.l.c., BP Amoco p.l.c., Amoco Corporation, and Atlantic
Richfield Company.
b.

BP p.l.c. controls and has controlled company-wide decisions about thequantity and extent of fossil fuel production and sales, including those of its subsidiaries. BP p.l.c.
is the ultimate decision-maker with respect to fundamental decisions about the BP Group’s corebusiness, e.g., the level of fossil fuel production companywide, including production among BP
p.l.c.’s subsidiaries. BP p.l.c.’s 2022 Annual Report summarizes the company’s “Strategic
progress,” including on offshore projects in the Gulf of Mexico, Brazil, and Angola, as well as

6

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

acquisitions and sales of various oil and gas operations. In 2016 to 2017, BP p.l.c. reported that it
brought online 13 major exploration and production projects, contributing to a 12 percent increasein the BP Group’s overall fossil fuel product production. These projects were carried out by BP
p.l.c.’s subsidiaries.
c.

BP p.l.c. controls and has controlled company-wide decisions, including

those of its subsidiaries, related to marketing, advertising, GHG emissions, and climate change
resulting from the company’s fossil fuel products, as well as communications strategies concerning
climate change and the link between fossil fuel use and climate-related impacts on the environmentand humans. BP p.l.c. makes fossil fuel production decisions for the entire BP Group based on
factors including climate change. BP p.l.c.’s Board of Directors is the highest decision-making
body within the company, with direct responsibility for the BP Group’s climate change policy. BP
p.l.c.’s chief executive is responsible for maintaining the BP Group’s system of internal control
that governs the BP Group’s business conduct. BP p.l.c.’s senior leadership directly oversees a“carbon steering group,” which manages climate change-related matters and consists of two
committees—both overseen directly by the Board of Directors—that focus on climate changerelated investments.
d.

Defendant BP America Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of BP p.l.c. thatacts on BP p.l.c.’s behalf and is subject to BP p.l.c.’s control. BP America Inc. is a verticallyintegrated energy and petrochemical company incorporated in the State of Delaware, with its
headquarters and principal place of business in Houston, Texas. BP America Inc. consists ofnumerous divisions and affiliates in all aspects of fossil fuel production, including exploration forand production of crude oil and natural gas; manufacture of petroleum products; andtransportation, marketing, and sale of crude oil, natural gas, and petroleum products. BP America

7

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

Inc. was formerly known as, did or does business as, is or was affiliated with, and/or is the
successor in liability to Amoco Oil Company; Amoco Production Company; ARCO ProductsCompany; BP Exploration & Oil, Inc.; BP Products North America Inc.; BP Amoco Corporation;
BP Oil, Inc.; BP Oil Company; Sohio Oil Company; Standard Oil of Ohio (SOHIO); Standard Oil(Indiana); and Atlantic Richfield Company (a Pennsylvania Corporation) and its division, the Arco
Chemical Company.
e.

Defendant BP Products North America Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiaryof BP p.l.c. that acts on BP p.l.c.’s behalf and is subject to BP p.l.c.’s control. BP Products North
America Inc. is a vertically integrated energy and petrochemical company incorporated in the Stateof Maryland, with its headquarters and principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois, and has
been registered to do business in Illinois since 1956.7 BP Products North America, Inc. explores,
develops, refines, and markets oil and natural gas and other fossil fuel products, including gasoline,
kerosene, fuel oils, and lubricants.8f.

BP Products North America Inc. operates retail gasoline stations in the Stateof Illinois and throughout the United States,9 and, “[u]nder an exclusive license from its parent
BP Products North America Inc. has confirmed that it is an Illinois citizen. See Cline v. BP Prods.
N. Am. Inc., No. 23-856, Dkt. 1 at 8 (E.D. La. Mar. 8, 2023) (“BP Products North America Inc.,
individually and as successor in interest to Amoco Oil Company and The American Oil Company,
is incorporated in the State of Maryland, with its principal place of business in Illinois. BP Products
North America Inc. is therefore (and was at the time of filing of the state court action) a citizen of
Maryland and Illinois for purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction.”); see also Heath v. BP Prods.
N. Am., Inc., No. 13-4741, Dkt. 50 ¶ 3 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 27, 2013) (“Diversity of citizenship fails inthis case as Plaintiff and Defendant BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA INC. and BP
PIPELINES (NORTH AMERICA) INC. are both citizens of Illinois.”).
7

BP Products North America Settlement, U.S. ENVT’L. PROT. AGENCY (Sept. 30, 2010)https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/bp-north-america-settlement (“BP Products North America,
Inc. engages in the exploration, development, production, refining, and marketing of oil andnatural gas.”).
8

BP Expands Mobility and Convenience Network Completing the Purchase of Leading Travel
CenterOperator,
TravelCentersofAmerica,
BP
(May
15,
2023),
98

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

company BP p.l.c., located in London, United Kingdom, BP Products [North America] markets avariety of automotive products, including, among other things, gasoline, and related goods andservices through automotive service stations and convenience stores in Illinois and throughout theUnited States on its own and through authorized sub-licensees.”10g.

BP Products North America Inc. recently stated that it “is a longtime

supplier of motor fuel in the Midwest, including in Chicagoland. [BP Products North America
Inc.] refines motor fuel and markets it to the public through BP-branded and Amoco-branded
stations located all across the Chicago area. There are more than 400 BP-branded retail motor fuelstations in the State of Illinois alone.”11h.

BP Products North America Inc. was formerly known as, did or does

business as, is or was affiliated with, and/or is the successor in liability to Air BP, Amoco Oil
Company; Amoco Production Company; ARCO Products Company; BP Exploration & Oil, Inc.;
BP America Inc.; BP Amoco Corporation; BP Oil, Inc.; BP Oil Company; Sohio Oil Company;
Standard Oil of Ohio (SOHIO); Standard Oil (Indiana); and Atlantic Richfield Company (aPennsylvania Corporation) and its division, the Arco Chemical Company.
i.

Defendants BP p.l.c., BP America Inc., and BP Products North America

Inc., together with their predecessors, successors, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and divisions,are collectively referred to herein as “BP.”https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/news-and-insights/press-releases/bp-expands-mobilityand-convenience-network-completing-the-purchase-of-leading-travel-center-operatortravelcenters-of-america.html.
10

BP Prods. N. Am. Inc. v. Sandhu Petroleum, Inc., No. 05-586, Dkt. 1 ¶ 7 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 1, 2005).

BP Prods. N. Am. Inc. v. 4401 Inc., No. 2021 CH 02246, Am. Compl. ¶ 7 (Ill. Cir. Ct. July 27,2021); see also Diamond v. BP Prods. N. Am. Inc., Case No. 10-471, Dkt. 52 at 2 (N.D. Ill. Aug.
20, 2010) (BP Products North America Inc. “market[s] motor fuel through retail outlets in the
Chicago area”).
11

9FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

j.

The City’s claims against BP arise out of and are related to the acts andomissions of BP in the City of Chicago and BP’s actions elsewhere that caused and will cause
injuries in the City.
k.

BP has purposefully directed its tortious conduct toward Chicago by

distributing, marketing, advertising, promoting, and supplying its fossil fuel products in Chicago,with knowledge that the intended use of those products for combustion has caused and willcontinue to cause climate change-related harms in Chicago, including injuries to the City. BP’sstatements in Chicago, in Illinois, and elsewhere made in furtherance of its campaign of deception
about and denial of climate change, and BP’s affirmative promotion of its fossil fuel products as
safe despite knowledge of how the intended use of those products would cause climate changerelated harms, were designed to conceal and mislead consumers and the public, including the Cityand its residents, about the serious adverse consequences that would result from continued use ofBP’s products. That conduct was purposefully directed to reach and influence the City and its
residents to continue the unabated use of BP’s fossil fuel products in Chicago, thereby resulting in
the City’s injuries.
l.

Over the last several decades and continuing to the present day, BP spent

millions of dollars on radio, television, online, social media, and outdoor advertisements in the
Chicago market related to its fossil fuel products.12 Since at least 1988 and continuing to thepresent day, BP has advertised in print publications circulated widely to Chicago consumers,
including but not limited to the following: The Chicago Tribune; The Chicago Sun-Times; The
Atlantic; Life; Newsweek; The New York Times; Sports Illustrated, Time; The Wall Street Journal;

See 4401 Inc., No. 2021 CH 02246, Am. Compl. ¶ 12 (stating in a Chicago filing that BP
Products North America “has spent many hundreds of millions of dollars promoting andadvertising its goods and services under the BP name and mark.”).
12

10

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

and The Washington Post. BP has acknowledged the widespread impact of its marketing
techniques “in the Chicago market where it has worked to establish and maintain brand awarenessand goodwill.”13 As further detailed herein, these include advertisements containing false or
misleading statements, misrepresentations, and/or material omissions obfuscating the connection
between the production and use of BP’s fossil fuel products and climate change, and/or
misrepresenting BP’s products and BP itself as environmentally friendly.
m.

Significant quantities of BP’s fossil fuel products are or have beentransported, traded, distributed, promoted, marketed, manufactured, sold, and/or consumed in
Chicago and in Illinois, from which activities BP derives and has derived substantial revenue.
n.

BP conducts and controls, either directly or through franchise agreements,

retail fossil fuel sales at gas station locations throughout Chicago and Illinois, at which locations
it promotes, advertises, and sells its fossil fuel products. Its “retail presence includes over 750 bp,
Amoco-, Thorntons- and TravelCenters of America-branded sites” in Illinois.14 There are 208 BPand Amoco-branded petroleum stations in Chicago alone.
o.

BP also markets and sells other fossil fuel products, including engine

lubricant and motor oils, to Chicago and Illinois consumers under its Castrol brand name.
p.

BP markets and advertises its fossil fuel products in Chicago to its residents

by maintaining an interactive website available to prospective customers by which it directs theCity’s residents to its nearby retail service stations and/or lubricant distributors.15
q.

Further, BP promotes its products in Chicago and Illinois by regularly

updating and actively promoting its “BPme Rewards” app and rewards program, which encourages
13

Id. ¶ 26.

14

Illinois, BP, https://permanent.link/to/bpinchicago/whereweoperate (last visited Dec. 6, 2023).

15

bp in Illinois, BP, https://permanent.link/to/bpinchicago/illinois (last visited Dec. 6, 2023).
11

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

customers to buy fuel at its stations in Chicago and Illinois in exchange for rewards on fuelpurchase.
r.

By the company’s own description, “bp has a rich, proud history in Chicago

dating back more than a century. Over the years, its investments have made the company part ofthe [C]ity’s cultural fabric.”16 The Aon Center was built as the Standard Oil Building in Chicago
and was subsequently renamed the Amoco Building.17 BP claims to “support[] nearly 7,000 jobs
across Illinois,” including at least 3,100 BP employees, and has invested $740 million throughvendors in the State.18 Additionally, “[s]ince 2012, bp has contributed more than $11 million in
research at the University of Illinois at Urbana – Champaign including student-led technology
projects.”19s.

Many of BP’s corporate level decisions—including its decisions

surrounding the transportation, distribution, promotion, and marketing of fossil fuels—take placein Chicago.20 “Chicago is also home to the US headquarters of Air bp, one of the world’s leading
suppliers of aviation fuel products and services,”21 and as discussed below, BP’s greenwashingcampaign included statements about its aviation fuel products.

16

Id.

17

Id.

18

Id.

19

Id.

Id. (“Chicago is the headquarters for control centers in Oklahoma and Washington that manage
more than 4,200 miles of pipelines within the US.”).
20

21

Id.
12

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

16.

Chevron Entities: Chevron Corporation and Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
a.

Defendant Chevron Corporation is a multinational, vertically integrated

energy and chemicals company incorporated in Delaware, with its global headquarters andprincipal place of business in San Ramon, California.
b.

Chevron Corporation operates through a web of United States andinternational subsidiaries at all levels of the fossil fuel supply chain. Chevron Corporation and its
subsidiaries’ operations include, but are not limited to, exploration, development, production,
storage, transportation, and marketing of crude oil and natural gas; refining crude oil into
petroleum products and marketing those products; and manufacturing and marketing commodity
petrochemicals, plastics for industrial uses, and fuel and lubricant additives.
c.

Chevron Corporation controls and has controlled company-wide decisions

about the quantity and extent of fossil fuel production and sales, including those of its subsidiaries.
Chevron Corporation determines whether and to what extent its corporate holdings market,
produce, and/or distribute fossil fuel products.
d.

Chevron Corporation controls and has controlled company-wide decisions,

including those of its subsidiaries, related to marketing, advertising, GHG emissions and climatechange resulting from the company’s fossil fuel products, and communications strategies
concerning climate change and the link between fossil fuel use and climate-related impacts on theenvironment and humans. Overall accountability for climate change within Chevron Corporation
lies with Chevron Corporation’s Board of Directors and Executive Committee.
e.

Defendant Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation with its

principal place of business located in San Ramon, California. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is registered to
do business in Illinois, since 1954. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Chevron

13

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

Corporation that acts on Chevron Corporation’s behalf and is subject to Chevron Corporation’scontrol. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. was formerly known as, did or does business as, and/or is the
successor in liability to Gulf Oil Corporation, Gulf Oil Corporation of Pennsylvania, Chevron
Products Company, and Chevron Chemical Company.
f.

Defendants Chevron Corporation and Chevron U.S.A. Inc., together with

their predecessors, successors, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and divisions, are collectively
referred to herein as “Chevron.”g.

The City’s claims against Chevron arise out of and are related to the acts

and omissions of Chevron in Chicago and elsewhere that caused and will cause injuries in Chicago.
h.

Chevron has purposefully directed its tortious conduct toward Chicago by

distributing, marketing, advertising, promoting, and supplying its fossil fuel products in Chicago,with knowledge that the intended use of those products for combustion has caused and willcontinue to cause climate change-related harms in Chicago, including the City’s injuries.
Chevron’s statements in Chicago, in Illinois, and elsewhere made in furtherance of its campaign
of deception about and denial of climate change, and Chevron’s affirmative promotion of its fossil
fuel products as safe with knowledge of how the intended use of those products would cause
climate change-related harms, were designed to conceal and mislead consumers and the public,
including the City and its residents, about the serious adverse consequences that would result fromcontinued use of Chevron’s products. That conduct was purposefully directed to reach andinfluence the City and its residents to continue the unabated use of Chevron’s fossil fuel products
in Chicago, thereby resulting in the City’s injuries.
i.

Over the last several decades and continuing to the present day, Chevron

spent millions of dollars on radio, television, online, social media, and outdoor advertisements in

14

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

the Chicago market related to its fossil fuel products. Since at least 1970, and continuing to thepresent day, Chevron has advertised in print publications circulated widely to Chicago consumers,
including but not limited to the following: The Chicago Tribune; The Chicago Sun-Times; The
Atlantic; Life; National Geographic; The New York Times; Sports Illustrated; Time Magazine; The
Wall Street Journal; and The Washington Post. As further detailed herein, these include
advertisements containing false or misleading statements, misrepresentations, and/or material
omissions obfuscating the connection between the production and use of Chevron’s fossil fuelproducts and climate change, and/or misrepresenting Chevron’s products or Chevron itself as
environmentally friendly.
j.

Significant quantities of Chevron’s fossil fuel products are or have beentransported, traded, distributed, promoted, marketed, manufactured, sold, and/or consumed in
Chicago, from which activities Chevron derives and has derived substantial revenue.
k.

Chevron conducts and controls, either directly or through franchise

agreements, retail fossil fuel sales at gas station locations, at which locations it promotes,
advertises, and sells its fossil fuel products under its various brand names, including Chevron,
Texaco, and other brand names.
l.

Chevron also markets and sells other fossil fuel products, including engine

lubricant and motor oils, to Chicago and Illinois consumers under its Starplex/Delo, IsoClean,
Techron, and Havoline brand names. Chevron markets and advertises its fossil fuel products in
Chicago to its residents by maintaining an interactive website available to prospective customers
by which it directs the City’s residents to its nearby retail service stations and/or lubricant
distributors.22 Further, Chevron promotes its products in Chicago and Illinois by regularly updating
Where to Buy, CHEVRON LUBRICANTS, https://www.chevronlubricants.com/en_us/home/whereto-buy/find-a-retailer.html (last visited Nov. 15, 2023).
22

15

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

and actively promoting its “Chevron Texaco Rewards” app and rewards program, which
encourages customers to buy fuel at its stations in exchange for rewards on fuel purchases.
m.

Chevron operates the Seneca biorefinery in Seneca, Illinois,23 as well as theDanville biodiesel refinery in Danville, Illinois.24
n.
17.

Chevron Energy Solutions has an office in Oak Brook, Illinois.

ConocoPhillips Entities: ConocoPhillips; ConocoPhillips Company; Phillips

66 Company; and Phillips 66
a.

Defendant ConocoPhillips is a multinational energy company incorporated

in Delaware, with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. ConocoPhillips consists ofnumerous divisions, subsidiaries, and affiliates that execute ConocoPhillips’s fundamental
decisions related to all aspects of fossil fuel production, including exploration, extraction,
production, manufacture, transport, and marketing.
b.

ConocoPhillips controls and has controlled company-wide decisions about

the quantity and extent of fossil fuel production and sales, including those of its subsidiaries.
ConocoPhillips determines whether and to what extent its corporate holdings market, produce,
and/or distribute fossil fuel products. ConocoPhillips’s most recent annual report to the Securities
and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) subsumes the operations of ConocoPhillips’s subsidiaries. In
ConocoPhillips’s Form 10-K filed with the SEC for Fiscal Year 2022, the company represents thatits value—for which ConocoPhillips maintains ultimate responsibility—is a function of its
decisions directing subsidiaries to develop crude oil, bitumen, natural gas, and natural gas liquids

Seneca, IL, CHEVRON, https://www.regi.com/services/find-fuels/seneca-il (last visited Nov. 15,2023).
23

Danville, IL, CHEVRON, https://www.regi.com/services/find-fuels/danville-il (last visited Nov.
15, 2023).
24

16

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

from ConocoPhillips’s reserves into fossil fuel products and to explore for and replace thosereserves with more fossil fuels: “Unless we successfully develop resources, the scope of ourbusiness will decline, resulting in an adverse impact to our business. . . . If we are not successful
in replacing the resources we produce with good prospects for future organic development or
through acquisitions, our business will decline.”25c.

ConocoPhillips optimizes the ConocoPhillips group’s oil and gas portfolio

to fit ConocoPhillips’s strategic plan. For example, ConocoPhillips’ 10-K in 2022 summaries the“continued development of onshore assets” in the United States and new exploration activities in
Alaska, Canada, the North Sea, and elsewhere.26 Similarly, in November 2016, ConocoPhillips
announced a plan to generate five to eight billion dollars of proceeds over two years by optimizing
its business portfolio, including its fossil fuel product business, to focus on low cost-of-supply
fossil fuel production projects that strategically fit its development plans.
d.

ConocoPhillips controls and has controlled company-wide decisions,

including those of its subsidiaries, related to marketing, advertising, GHG emissions and climatechange resulting from the company’s fossil fuel products, and communications strategies
concerning climate change and the link between fossil fuel use and climate-related impacts on theenvironment and humans. For instance, ConocoPhillips’s Board of Directors has the highest levelof direct responsibility for climate change policy within the company. ConocoPhillips hasdeveloped and purportedly implements a corporate Climate Change Action Plan to govern climatechange decision-making across all entities in the ConocoPhillips group.

25

ConocoPhillips, Annual Report (Form 10-K) (Feb. 16, 2023).

26

Id.
17

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

e.

Defendant ConocoPhillips Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of

ConocoPhillips that acts on ConocoPhillips’ behalf and is subject to ConocoPhillips’ control.
ConocoPhillips Company is incorporated in Delaware, with its principal place of business in
Houston, Texas. ConocoPhillips Company was formerly known as, did or does business as, is or
was affiliated with, and/or is the successor in liability to Phillips Petroleum Company.
f.

Defendant Phillips 66 Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Phillips

66 that acts on Phillips 66’s behalf and is subject to Phillips 66’s control. Phillips 66 Company isincorporated in Delaware, with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. Phillips 66
Company had been registered to do business since 1964 under a different name, Phillips Chemical
Company, which was a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Phillips Petroleum Company. Phillips
Chemical Company changed its name to Phillips 66 Company in 1985, and that iteration of Phillips
66 Company was terminated in 1991. Phillips 66 Company was formerly known as, did or does
business as, is or was affiliated with, and/or is the successor in liability to Phillips Petroleum
Company; Phillips Chemical Company; Conoco, Inc.; Tosco Corporation; and Tosco Refining Co.
g.

Defendant Phillips 66 is a multinational energy and petrochemicalcompany incorporated in Delaware, with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. It
encompasses downstream fossil fuel processing, refining, transport, and marketing segments thatwere formerly owned and/or controlled by ConocoPhillips.
h.

Defendants ConocoPhillips, ConocoPhillips Company, Phillips 66, andPhillips 66 Company, as well as their predecessors, successors, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, anddivisions, are collectively referred to herein as “ConocoPhillips.”18

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

i.

The City’s claims against ConocoPhillips arise out of and are related to theacts and omissions of ConocoPhillips in Chicago and elsewhere that caused and will cause injuries
in Chicago.
j.

ConocoPhillips has purposefully directed its tortious conduct toward

Chicago by distributing, marketing, advertising, promoting, and supplying its fossil fuel products
in Chicago, with knowledge that the intended use of those products for combustion has caused andwill continue to cause climate change-related harms in Chicago, including the City’s injuries.
ConocoPhillips’s statements in Chicago, in Illinois, and elsewhere made in furtherance of its
campaign of deception about and denial of climate change, and ConocoPhillips’s affirmative
promotion of its fossil fuel products as safe with knowledge of how the intended use of those
products would cause climate change-related harms, were designed to conceal and mislead
consumers and the public, including the City and its residents, about the serious adverse
consequences that would result from continued use of ConocoPhillips’s products. That conduct
was purposefully directed to reach and influence the City and its residents to continue the unabateduse of ConocoPhillips’s fossil fuel products in Chicago, thereby resulting in the City’s injuries.
k.

Over the last several decades and continuing to the present day,

ConocoPhillips spent millions of dollars on radio, television, online, social media, and outdoor
advertisements in the Chicago market related to its fossil fuel products. Since at least 1970, andcontinuing to the present day, ConocoPhillips has advertised in print publications circulated widely
to Chicago consumers, including but not limited to the following: The Chicago Tribune; The
Chicago Sun-Times; The Atlantic; Life; National Geographic; Newsweek; The New York Times;
People; Sports Illustrated; Time Magazine; The Wall Street Journal; and The Washington Post.
As further detailed herein, these include advertisements containing false or misleading statements,

19

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

misrepresentations, and/or material omissions obfuscating the connection between the production
and use of ConocoPhillips’s fossil fuel products and climate change, and/or misrepresenting
ConocoPhillips’s products or ConocoPhillips itself as environmentally friendly.
l.

Significant quantities of ConocoPhillips’ fossil fuel products are or havebeen transported, traded, distributed, promoted, marketed, manufactured, sold, and/or consumedin Chicago and in Illinois, from which activities ConocoPhillips derives and has derived substantial
revenue.
m.

ConocoPhillips conducts and controls, either directly or through franchise

agreements, retail fossil fuel sales at gas station locations throughout Chicago and Illinois, at which
locations it promotes, advertises, and sells its fossil fuel products under its various brand names,
including Conoco, Phillips 66, and other brands. There are 191 such gas stations in Illinois,
including in and around Chicago.
n.

ConocoPhillips also markets and sells other fossil fuel products, including

engine lubricant and motor oils, to Chicago and Illinois consumers under its Phillips 66, Kendall,
and Red Line brand names.
o.

ConocoPhillips markets and advertises its fossil fuel products in Chicago to

its residents by maintaining interactive websites available to prospective customers by which it
directs the City’s residents to its nearby retail service stations and/or lubricant distributors.27
Further, ConocoPhillips promotes its products in Chicago and Illinois by regularly updating andactively promoting its “KickBack Rewards” and “Phillips 66 Credit Card Rewards Program,”

Station Finder, CONOCO, https://www.conoco.com/station-finder/ (last visited Nov. 15, 2023);
Station Finder, PHILLIPS 66, https://www.phillips66gas.com/station-finder/ (last visited Nov. 15,2023); Find a Distributor, PHILLIPS 66, https://phillips66lubricants.com/find-distributor/ (lastvisited Nov. 15, 2023).
27

20

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

which encourages customers to buy fuel at its stations in Chicago and Illinois in exchange forrewards on fuel purchases.
p.

Phillips 66 operates the Wood River Refinery in Roxana, Illinois, which isin Southern Illinois.28 This is the largest refinery in Illinois, and it processes 356,000 barrels of
crude oil per day.
18.

Exxon Entities: Exxon Mobil Corporation and ExxonMobil Oil Corporationa.

Defendant Exxon Mobil Corporation is a New Jersey corporation

headquartered in Irving, Texas. Exxon Mobil Corporation is a multinational, vertically integrated
energy and chemical company and one of the largest publicly traded international oil and gas
companies in the world. Exxon Mobil Corporation was formerly known as, did or does businessas, is or was affiliated with, and/or is the successor in liability to Exxon Corporation; ExxonMobil
Refining and Supply Company; Exxon Chemical U.S.A.; ExxonMobil Chemical Corporation;
ExxonMobil Chemical U.S.A.; ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Corporation; Exxon Company,
U.S.A.; Standard Oil Company of New Jersey; and Mobil Corporation.
b.

Exxon Mobil Corporation controls and has controlled company-widedecisions about the quantity and extent of fossil fuel production and sales, including those of its
subsidiaries. Exxon Mobil Corporation’s 2022 Form 10-K filed with the SEC represents that its
success, including its “ability to mitigate risk and provide attractive returns to shareholders,
depends on [its] ability to successfully manage [its] overall portfolio, including diversification
among types and locations of [its] projects, products produced, and strategies to divest assets.”29
Exxon Mobil Corporation determines whether and to what extent its subsidiaries market, produce,
Wood River Refinery, PHILLIPS 66, https://www.phillips66.com/refining/wood-river-refinery/(last visited Nov. 15, 2023).
28

29

Exxon Mobil Corp., Annual Report Form (10-K) (Feb. 22, 2023).
21

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

and/or distribute fossil fuel products. For example, on October 11, 2023, Exxon Mobil Corporation
announced its acquisition of Pioneer Natural Resources in a press release that referred to thecorporate family generally as “ExxonMobil.”30c.

Exxon Mobil Corporation controls and has controlled company-widedecisions, including those of its subsidiaries, related to marketing, advertising, GHG emissions
and climate change resulting from the company’s fossil fuel products, and communications
strategies concerning climate change and the link between fossil fuel use and climate-related
impacts on the environment and humans. Exxon Mobil Corporation’s Board holds the highest levelof direct responsibility for climate change policy within the company. Exxon Mobil Corporation’s
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, its President, and the other members of its
Management Committee have been actively engaged in discussions relating to GHG emissions
and the risks of climate change on an ongoing basis. Exxon Mobil Corporation requires its
subsidiaries, when seeking funding for capital investments, to provide estimates of project costs
related to GHG emissions.
d.

Defendant ExxonMobil Oil Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary of

Exxon Mobil Corporation, acts on Exxon Mobil Corporation’s behalf, and is subject to Exxon
Mobil Corporation’s control. ExxonMobil Oil Corporation is a New York corporation with its
headquarters in Irving, Texas. ExxonMobil Oil Corporation was formerly known as, did or does
business as, is or was affiliated with, and/or is the successor in liability to Mobil Oil Corporation.

ExxonMobil announces merger with Pioneer Natural Resources in an all-stock transaction,
EXXONMOBIL
(Oct.
11,
2023),
https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/news/newsreleases/2023/1011_exxonmobil-announces-merger-with-pioneer-natural-resources-in-an-allstock-transaction.
30

22

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

e.

Defendants Exxon Mobil Corporation, ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, andtheir predecessors, successors, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and divisions, are collectively
referred to herein as “Exxon.”f.

Exxon consists of numerous divisions and affiliates in all areas of the fossil

fuel industry, including exploration for and production of crude oil and natural gas; manufactureof petroleum products; and transportation, promotion, marketing, and sale of crude oil, natural gas,and petroleum products. Exxon is also a major manufacturer and marketer of commodity
petrochemical products.
g.

Exxon has purposefully directed its tortious conduct toward Chicago by

distributing, marketing, advertising, promoting, and supplying its fossil fuel products in Chicago,with knowledge that the intended use of those products for combustion has caused and willcontinue to cause climate change-related harms in Chicago, including the City’s injuries. Exxon’s
statements in Chicago, in Illinois, and elsewhere made in furtherance of its campaign of deception
about and denial of climate change, and Exxon’s affirmative promotion of its fossil fuel products
as safe with knowledge of how the intended use of those products would cause climate changerelated harms, were designed to conceal and mislead consumers and the public, including the Cityand its residents, about the serious adverse consequences that would result from continued use of
Exxon’s products. That conduct was purposefully directed to reach and influence the City and its
residents to continue the unabated use of Exxon’s fossil fuel products in Chicago, thereby resulting
in the City’s injuries.
h.

Over the past several decades and continuing to the present day, Exxon

spent millions of dollars on radio, television, online, social media, and outdoor advertisements in
the Chicago market related to its fossil fuel products. Since at least 1972, and continuing to the23FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

present day, Exxon has advertised its fossil fuel products in print publications circulated widely to
Chicago consumers, including but not limited to: The Chicago Tribune; The Chicago Sun-Times;
The Atlantic; Ebony; Life; National Geographic; The New York Times; People; Sports Illustrated;
Time; The Wall Street Journal; and The Washington Post. As further detailed herein, these include
advertisements containing false or misleading statements, misrepresentations, and/or material
omissions designed to hide the connection between the production and use of Exxon’s fossil fuelproducts and climate change, and/or misrepresenting Exxon’s products or Exxon itself as
environmentally friendly.
i.

Significant quantities of Exxon’s fossil fuel products are or have beentransported, traded, distributed, promoted, marketed, manufactured, sold, and/or consumed in
Chicago and in Illinois, from which activities Exxon derives and has derived substantial revenue.
j.

Exxon conducts and controls, either directly or through franchise

agreements, retail fossil fuel sales at gas station locations throughout Chicago and Illinois, at which
locations it promotes, advertises, and sells its fossil fuel products. There are 54 Exxon- and Mobilbranded gas stations in Chicago, and 463 throughout Illinois.
k.

Exxon also markets and sells other fossil fuel products, including engine

lubricants and motor oils, to Chicago and Illinois consumers under its Mobil 1 brand name.
l.

Exxon markets and advertises its fossil fuel products in Chicago to its

residents by maintaining an interactive website available to prospective customers by which it
directs the City’s residents to its nearby retail service stations and/or lubricant distributors.31
Further, Exxon promotes its products in Chicago and Illinois by regularly updating and actively
Find a Gas Station Near Me, EXXON MOBIL, https://www.exxon.com/en/find-station (last visited
Nov. 15, 2023); Stores Nearby Selling Mobil 1 and Mobil Motor Oil, MOBIL,
https://www.mobil.com/en/lubricants/where-to-buy/motor-oil-product-locator (last visited Nov.
15, 2023).
31

24

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

promoting its “Exxon Mobil Rewards+” app and rewards program, which encourages customers
to buy fuel at its stations in Chicago and Illinois in exchange for rewards on fuel purchases.
19.

Shell Entities: Shell Oil Products Company LLC; Shell plc; and Shell USA,

Inc.
a.

Defendant Shell Oil Products Company LLC is a wholly-owned

subsidiary of Shell USA, Inc., that acts on Shell USA, Inc.’s behalf and is subject to Shell USA,
Inc.’s control. Shell Oil Products Company LLC is incorporated in Delaware, with its principal
place of business in Houston, Texas, and has been registered to do business in Illinois since 2001.
Shell Oil Products Company LLC was formerly known as, did or does business as, is or wasaffiliated with, and/or is the successor in liability to Shell Oil Products Company, which was a
Delaware corporation that converted to a limited liability company in 2001.
b.

Defendant Shell plc (formerly Royal Dutch Shell PLC) is a verticallyintegrated multinational energy and petrochemical company. Shell plc is incorporated in Englandand Wales, with its headquarters and principal place of business in The Hague, Netherlands. Shell
plc is the ultimate parent company of numerous divisions, subsidiaries, and affiliates, referred tocollectively as the “Shell Group,” that engage in all aspects of fossil fuel production, including
exploration, development, extraction, manufacturing and energy production, transport, trading,marketing, and sales.
c.

Shell plc controls and has controlled company-wide decisions about thequantity and extent of fossil fuel production and sales, including those of its subsidiaries. Shell
plc’s Board of Directors determines whether and to what extent Shell subsidiary holdings aroundthe globe produce Shell-branded fossil fuel products.

25

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

d.

Shell plc controls and has controlled company-wide decisions, including

those of its subsidiaries, related to marketing, advertising, GHG emissions and climate change
resulting from the company’s fossil fuel products, and communications strategies concerning
climate change and the link between fossil fuel use and climate-related impacts on the environmentand humans. Overall accountability for climate change within the Shell Group lies with Shell plc’s
Chief Executive Officer and Executive Committee. For instance, at least as early as 1988, Shellplc, through its predecessors and subsidiaries, was researching company-wide carbon dioxide(“CO2”) emissions and concluded that the Shell Group accounted for four percent of the CO2
emitted worldwide from combustion, and that climatic changes could compel the Shell Group, as
controlled by Shell plc, to examine the possibilities of expanding and contracting its businessaccordingly.
e.

Defendant Shell USA, Inc. (formerly Shell Oil Company) is a wholly-

owned subsidiary of Shell plc that acts on Shell plc’s behalf and is subject to Shell plc’s control.
Shell USA, Inc. is incorporated in Delaware, with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas.
Shell USA, Inc. has been registered to do business in California since 1949. Shell USA, Inc. wasformerly known as, did or does business as, is or was affiliated with, and/or is the successor in
liability to Shell Oil Company; Shell Oil; Deer Park Refining LP; Shell Oil Products US; Shell
Chemical LP; Shell Trading (US) Company; Shell Energy Resources Company; Shell Energy
Services Company, L.L.C.; The Pennzoil Company; and Pennzoil-Quaker State Company.
f.

Defendants Shell plc, Shell USA, Inc., Shell Oil Products Company LLC,

and their predecessors, successors, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and divisions are collectively
referred to herein as “Shell.”26

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

g.

Shell has purposefully directed its tortious conduct toward Chicago by

distributing, marketing, advertising, promoting, and supplying its fossil fuel products in Chicago,with knowledge that the intended use of those products for combustion has caused and willcontinue to cause climate change-related harms in Chicago, including the City’s injuries. Shell’sstatements in Chicago, in Illinois, and elsewhere made in furtherance of its campaign of deception
about and denial of climate change, and Shell’s affirmative promotion of its fossil fuel products as
safe with knowledge of how the intended use of those products would cause climate change-related
harms, were designed to conceal these harms and mislead consumers and the public, including theCity and its residents, about the serious adverse consequences that would result from continued
use of Shell’s products. That conduct was purposefully directed to reach and influence the Cityand its residents to continue the unabated use of Shell’s fossil fuel products in Chicago, thereby
resulting in the City’s injuries.
h.

Over the last several decades and continuing to the present day, Shell spent

millions of dollars on radio, television, online, social media, and outdoor advertisements in the
Chicago market related to its fossil fuel products. Since at least 1970, and continuing to the presentday, Shell has advertised its fossil fuel products in print publications circulated widely to Chicago
consumers, including but not limited to the following: The Chicago Tribune; The Chicago SunTimes; The Atlantic; Ebony; The Economist; Life; National Geographic; Newsweek; The New YorkTimes; Sports Illustrated; Time Magazine; The Wall Street Journal; and The Washington Post. As
further detailed herein, these include advertisements containing false or misleading statements,
misrepresentations, and/or material omissions obfuscating the connection between the production
and use of Shell’s fossil fuel products and climate change, and/or misrepresenting Shell’s products
or Shell itself as environmentally friendly.

27

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

i.

Significant quantities of Shell’s fossil fuel products are or have beentransported, traded, distributed, promoted, marketed, manufactured, sold, and/or consumed in
Chicago and in Illinois, from which activities Shell derives and has derived substantial revenue.
j.

Shell conducts and controls, either directly or through franchise agreements,

retail fossil fuel sales at gas station locations throughout Chicago and Illinois, at which locations
it promotes, advertises, and sells its fossil fuel products. There are 89 Shell-branded gas stationsin Chicago, and 637 throughout Illinois.
k.

Shell also markets and sells other fossil fuel products, including engine

lubricants and motor oils, to Chicago and Illinois customers under its Penzoil brand name.
l.

Shell markets and advertises its fossil fuel products in Chicago to its

residents by maintaining an interactive website available to prospective customers by which it
directs the City’s residents to its nearby retail service stations and/or lubricant distributors.32
Further, Shell promotes its products in Chicago and Illinois by regularly updating and actively
promoting its “Fuel Rewards Program,” which encourages customers to buy fuel at its stations in
Chicago and Illinois in exchange for rewards on fuel purchases. Shell offers a proprietary credit
card known as the “Shell Fuel Rewards Card,” which allows consumers in Chicago and in Illinois
to pay for gasoline and other products at Shell-branded service stations, and which encourages
consumers to use Shell-branded gas stations by offering various rewards, including discounts on
gasoline purchases. Shell further maintains a smartphone application known as the “Shell US App”
that offers Chicago and Illinois consumers a cashless payment method for gasoline and otherproducts at Shell-branded service stations. Chicago and Illinois consumers can also receive

Gas Station Near Me, SHELL, https://www.shell.us/motorist/gas-station-near-me.html (lastvisited Nov. 15, 2023); Retail Locations & Oil Change Near Me, PENNZOIL,
https://www.pennzoil.com/en_us/oil-change-retail-locations.html (last visited Nov. 15, 2023).
32

28

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

rewards, including discounts on gasoline purchases, by registering their personal identifying
information in the Shell US App and using the application to identify and activate gas pumps at
Shell service stations during a purchase.
m.

Shell was the original operator of the Wood River refinery in Roxana,

Illinois (now operated by Phillips 66), and ran the refinery for over 80 years.33
20.

American Petroleum Institutea.

Defendant American Petroleum Institute, referred to herein as API, is a

nonprofit corporation based in the District of Columbia. API was created in 1919 to represent theAmerican oil and gas industry as a whole. With more than 600 members, API is the country’s
largest oil trade association. API’s purpose is to advance its members’ collective business interests,
which include increasing consumer consumption of oil and gas for the financial profit of oil andgas companies, including the Fossil Fuel Defendants. Among other functions, API also coordinates
members of the petroleum industry, gathers information of interest to the industry, anddisseminates that information to its members.
b.

Acting on behalf of and under the supervision and control of the Fossil Fuel

Defendants, API has, since at least 1988, participated in and led several coalitions, front groups,
and organizations that have promoted disinformation about the climate impacts of fossil fuelproducts to consumers—including, but not limited to, the Global Climate Coalition, Partnershipfor a Better Energy Future, Coalition for American Jobs, Alliance for Energy and Economic
Growth, and Alliance for Climate Strategies. These front groups were formed to promote climate
disinformation and advocacy from a purportedly objective source, when in fact these groups were

Post-Shell at the Wood River Refinery, MADISON CNTY. HISTORICAL SOCIETY (2017),
https://madcohistory.org/online-exhibits/wood-river-refinerys-first-100-years/post-shell-at-thewood-river-refinery/.
33

29

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

financed and controlled by the Fossil Fuel Defendants and other oil and gas companies. The Fossil
Fuel Defendants have benefited from the spread of this disinformation because, among otherthings, it has ensured a thriving consumer market for oil and gas, resulting in substantial profits
for the Fossil Fuel Defendants.
c.

API’s mission includes increasing consumers’ consumption of oil and gas

for the financial benefit of the Fossil Fuel Defendants and other oil and gas companies. In effect,
API acts and has acted as a marketing arm for its member companies, including the Fossil Fuel
Defendants. Over the last several decades, API has spent millions of dollars on television,
newspaper, radio, social media, and internet advertisements in the Chicago and Illinois markets.
d.

Member companies participate in API strategy, governance, and operation

through their membership dues and by contributing company officers and other personnel to API
boards, committees, and task forces. The Fossil Fuel Defendants have collectively steered thepolicies and trade practices of API through membership, Executive Committee roles, and/or
providing budgetary funding for API. The Fossil Fuel Defendants have used their control over andinvolvement in API to develop and execute a long-term advertising and communications campaign
centered on climate change denialism. The goal of the campaign was to influence consumer
demand for the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ fossil fuel products. The Fossil Fuel Defendants directly
controlled, supervised, and participated in API’s misleading messaging regarding climate change.
e.

In addition to national promotional campaigns circulated in Chicago, API

has also targeted Chicago and Illinois consumers directly by creating and disseminating misleading
advertisements that distinctly promote consumption of fossil fuel products in Chicago and Illinois.
API has run numerous press releases within Illinois touting the direct and indirect benefits toIllinois of the oil and gas industries’ operations in Chicago, in Illinois, and elsewhere in the United

30

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

States.34 The reports, sponsored by API, on which API bases its claims, do not mention climatechange at all, nor do the reports mention any of the direct and indirect harms to Chicago causedby the production, marketing, sale, and use of API members’ fossil fuel products.
f.

API hosts various events in Chicago. For instance, in 2022, API sponsoredthe “2022 Spring Refining and Equipment Standards Meeting” held in Chicago. Likewise, inNovember 2023, API sponsored the 2023 API/AFPM Fall Operating Practices Symposium andRoundtable in Chicago.35g.

All of the Fossil Fuel Defendants and/or their predecessors-in-interest havebeen key API members and have closely coordinated their tortious conduct with API at all times
relevant to this Complaint. All of the Fossil Fuel Defendants are currently members of API.
Executives from Exxon, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and BP have served on the API
Executive Committee and/or as API Chairman, essentially serving as corporate officers. For
example, Exxon’s CEO served on API’s Executive Committee for 15 of the 25 years between 1991
and 2016 (specifically, 1991, 1996-1997, 2001, and 2005-2016). BP’s CEO served as API’s
Chairman in 1988, 1989, and 1998. Chevron’s CEO served as API Chairman in 1994, 1995, 2003,
and 2012. Executives from ConocoPhillips also served as members of API’s Board of Directors at
various times. Shell’s President served on API’s Executive Committee from 2005 to 2006.
ConocoPhillips Chairman and CEO Ryan Lance was API Board President from 2016 to 2018, andExxon President and CEO Darren Woods was API Board President from 2018 to 2020. In 2020,

See, e.g., Energy Works: The people of Illinois are part of the oil and natural gas industry, API(2015), https://www.api.org/~/media/files/policy/jobs/energyworks/energyworks_illinois-api.pdf.
342023 API/AMPF Fall Operating Practices Symposium, API (2023), https://events.api.org/2023api-afpm-fall-operating-practices-symposium-androundtable/#:~:text=The%202023%20API%2FAFPM%20Fall,the%20lessons%20learned%20fro
m%20facility.
35

31

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

API elected Phillips 66 Chairman and CEO Greg Garland to serve a two-year term as its Board
President. In 2022, API elected Chevron CEO and Chairman Mike Wirth to succeed Mr. Garland
as Board Chairman.
h.

Relevant information was shared among API and the Fossil Fuel

Defendants and the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ predecessors-in-interest through the following: (1)API’s distribution of information to its members, and/or (2) participation of the Fossil Fuel
Defendants’ officers and other personnel, and those of the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ predecessorsin-interest, on API boards, committees, and task forces.
i.

The City’s claims against API arise out of and are related to the acts andomissions of API in Chicago, in Illinois, and elsewhere that caused and will cause injuries in
Chicago.
A.

Relevant Non-Parties: Defendants’ Agents/Front Groups21.

As detailed below, each Fossil Fuel Defendant had actual knowledge, or shouldhave known, that its fossil fuel products were hazardous in that the intended use of the fossil fuelproducts for combustion would substantially contribute to climate change and result in harms to
the City. The Fossil Fuel Defendants obtained knowledge of the hazards of their products
independently and through their membership and involvement in trade associations such as API.
22.

The Fossil Fuel Defendants and API employed, financed, and participated inseveral industry-created front groups to serve their mission of flooding the markets with climatechange disinformation and denialism. These organizations, acting on behalf of and under thesupervision and control of the Fossil Fuel Defendants, assisted the deception campaign byimplementing public advertising and outreach campaigns to discredit climate science and funding
scientists to cast doubt upon climate science and upon the extent to which climate change is causedby human activity. In sum, the Fossil Fuel Defendants, through their front groups, engaged in a
32

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

significant marketing campaign that misrepresented and concealed the dangers of their fossil fuelproducts with the aim of protecting or enhancing sales of these products to consumers, including
consumers in Chicago and in Illinois. Defendants actively supervised, facilitated, consented to,
and/or directly participated in the misleading messaging of these front groups, from which theFossil Fuel Defendants profited significantly, including in the form of increased sales in Chicago
and Illinois.
23.

The Global Climate Coalition (“GCC”) was an industry group formed topreserve and expand consumer demand for fossil fuels by publicly casting doubt on climate scienceand opposing GHG emission-reduction initiatives. GCC was founded in 1989 in reaction to thefirst meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”), the United Nations
body for assessing the science related to climate change, and to NASA scientist James Hansen’spresentation to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in which Mr. Hansenemphasized that climate change was already happening and would lead to dire consequences if left
unaddressed. GCC disbanded in or around 2001. Founding members included API, Shell Oil
Company (currently, Shell); Texaco, Inc. (currently, Chevron); Amoco (currently, BP); ARCO
(owned by BP at the time); and Phillips Petroleum Company (currently, ConocoPhillips). Tom
Lambrix, director of government relations for Phillips Petroleum, was chairman of GCC.
III.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
24.

This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the Illinois Constitution, art.

VI § 9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they transacted business;
committed tortious acts; owned, used, or possessed real property; made or performed contracts orpromises; acquired ownership, possession, or control of assets or things of value; performed
corporate duties; and/or were organized or had their principal places of businesses in Illinois,
including in Cook County. 735 ILCS 5/2-209.
33

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

25.

Jurisdiction is proper over each resident Defendant because they are incorporated

or have their principal place of business in Illinois.
26.

Additionally, jurisdiction is proper over each non-resident Defendant for thefollowing reasons:a.

With respect to its subsidiaries, each non-resident Fossil Fuel Defendantparent controls and has controlled decisions about the quantity and extent of its fossil fuelproduction and sales; determines whether and to what extent to market, produce, and/or distributeits fossil fuel products; and controls and has controlled decisions related to its marketing andadvertising, specifically communications strategies concerning climate change and the link
between fossil fuel use and impacts on the environment. Each non-resident Fossil Fuel Defendantparent has the power to direct and control its non-resident subsidiaries named here. Thus, eachsubsidiary is the agent of its parent. As agents, the subsidiaries of each non-resident Fossil Fuel
Defendant conducted activities in Chicago and Illinois at the direction and for the benefit of its
parent company. Specifically, the subsidiaries furthered each parent company’s campaign ofdeception and denial through misrepresentations, omissions, and affirmative promotion of thecompany’s fossil fuel products as safe with knowledge of the climate change-related harms thatwould result from the intended use of those products, all of which resulted in climate changerelated injuries in Chicago and increased sales to the parent company. Therefore, the subsidiaries’
jurisdictional activities are properly attributed to each parent company and serve as a basis to assert
jurisdiction over each of the non-resident Fossil Fuel Defendant parent companies.
b.

Through their various agreements with dealers, franchises, or otherwise, theFossil Fuel Defendants direct and control the branding, marketing, sales, promotions, image
development, signage, and advertising of their branded fossil fuel products at their respectively

34

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

branded gas stations in Chicago and in Illinois, including point-of-sale advertising and marketing.
The Fossil Fuel Defendants dictate which grades and formulations of their gasoline may be soldat their respectively branded stations.
c.

The Fossil Fuel Defendants, by and through API and other organizations

like GCC, conspired to conceal and misrepresent the known dangers of burning fossil fuels, toknowingly withhold material information regarding the consequences of using fossil fuel products,
to spread knowingly false and misleading information to the public regarding the weight of climate
science research, and to engage in massive campaigns to promote continued and increased use of
their fossil fuel products, which they knew would result in injuries to the City. Through their own
actions and through their membership and participation in climate denialist front groups, API andeach Fossil Fuel Defendant were and are members of this conspiracy. Defendants committed
substantial acts to further the conspiracy in Chicago and Illinois by making affirmative
misrepresentations to Chicago and Illinois consumers, as well as misleading them by omission,
about the existence, causes, and effects of global warming; and by affirmatively promoting theFossil Fuel Defendants’ fossil fuel products as safe, with knowledge of the disastrous impacts thatwould result from the intended use of those products. A substantial effect of this conspiracy has
also and will also occur in Chicago, as the City has suffered and will continue to suffer injuries
from Defendants’ wrongful conduct, including but not limited to the following: extreme heat,
severe droughts, massive storms, flooding, increased seasonal temperatures, negative impacts on
Lake Michigan, coastal erosion, damage to ecosystems and habitat, biodiversity disruption, publichealth injuries, and other social and economic consequences of these environmental changes.
Defendants knew or should have known—based on information provided to them from theirinternal research divisions, affiliates, trade associations, and industry groups—that their actions in

35

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

Chicago, Illinois, and elsewhere would result in these injuries in and to the City. Finally, theclimate effects described herein are direct and foreseeable results of Defendants’ conduct infurtherance of the conspiracy.
27.

Venue for this action is proper in the Circuit Court of Cook County because any

Defendant resides in Cook County, and because some part of the transactions out of which thecauses of action arose occurred in Cook County. 735 ILCS 5/2-101.
IV.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONSA.

Defendants Are Substantially Responsible for Causing and Accelerating
Climate Change.

28.

The earth’s atmosphere is warming, sea level is rising, snow and ice cover isdiminishing, oceans are warming and acidifying, and hydrologic systems have been altered, among
other rapidly accelerating changes to our climate. These changes are directly harming people’s
health, lives, lifestyles, and livelihoods, including in Chicago.
29.

In the geological short term, ocean and land surface temperatures have increased at

a rapid pace during the late 20th and early 21st centuries:a.

2023 was the hottest year on record by globally averaged surface

temperatures, exceeding mid-20th century mean ocean and land surface temperatures byapproximately 2.12° F. Each month in 2023 was hotter by globally averaged surface temperatures
than those respective months in any previous year. June, July, August, September, October,
November, and December 2023 were all the hottest average surface temperatures for thosemonths.36

NOAA National Center for Environmental Information, NOAA, Annual 2023 Global Climate
Report (Jan. 2024), https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthly-report/global/202313.
36

36

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

b.

The second hottest year on record by globally averaged surface

temperatures was 2016, and the third hottest was 2020.37
c.

The ten hottest years on record by globally averaged surface temperature

have all occurred since 2014.38
30.

The average global surface and ocean temperature in 2023 was approximately

2.12° F warmer than the 20th century baseline, which is the greatest positive anomaly observed
since at least 1850.39 The increase in hotter temperatures and more frequent positive anomalies
during the Great Acceleration is occurring both globally and locally, including in Chicago. The
graph below shows the increase in global land and ocean temperature anomalies since 1850, as
measured against the 1901–2000 global average temperature.40

Figure 1: NOAA Global Land and Ocean Temperatures41

37

Id.

38

Id.

39

Id.

40

See id.

41

Id.
37

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

31.

According to the IPCC, the evidence that humans are causing this warming of the

Earth is unequivocal.42
32.

Greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activities are the most significant

driver of climate change and ocean acidification.43 Over the past couple of decades, those emission
rates have exceeded those predicted under previous “worst case” global emissions scenarios. The
severity of the continuing impacts of climate change on Chicago will depend on the success of
mitigation and adaptation efforts in the City and on the reduction of fossil fuel consumption.44
33.

Greenhouse gases are largely byproducts of human combustion of fossil fuels to

produce energy and use of fossil fuels to create petrochemical products. While there are several
greenhouse gases contributing to climate change, CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas emitted as aresult of human activities.
34.

Prior to World War II, most anthropogenic CO2 emissions were caused by land-use

practices, such as forestry and agriculture, which altered the ability of the land and global biosphereto absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. The impacts of such activities on Earth’s climate wererelatively minor. Since that time, however, both the annual rate and total volume of anthropogenic
CO2 emissions have increased enormously following the dramatic rise of the combustion of oil,gas, and coal, in particular in the transportation industry and in the stationary energy market.

Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis, THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON
CLIMATECHANGE,
at
v,
4,
41,
63,
150,
425,
506
(2021),
https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6/wg1/IPCC_AR6_WGI_FullReport.pdf.
4243

Id. at 41.

See Climate Action Plan for the Chicago Region Appendix G: Climate Risk And Vulnerability
Assessment, METROPOLITAN MAYORS CAUCUS & NOAA, at 95-108 (Dec. 2016)
https://mayorscaucus.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/06/RegionalCAP_primary_and_appendices_062321-02.pdf
4438

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

35.

The graph below illustrates that fossil fuel emissions are the dominant source ofincreases in atmospheric CO2 since the mid-twentieth century:

Figure 2: Annual Global Emissions, 1850–202045
36.

This acceleration of fossil fuel emissions has led to a correspondingly sharp rise inatmospheric concentration of CO2. Since 1960, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has
spiked from under 320 parts per million (“ppm”) to approximately 423 ppm.46 The concentrationof atmospheric CO2 has also been accelerating. From 1960 to 1970, atmospheric CO2 increased byan average of approximately 0.9 ppm per year; over the last five years, it has increased byapproximately 2.4 ppm per year.47

Global Carbon Budget 2021, GLOBAL CARBON PROJECT, at 83 (Nov. 4, 2021),
https://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/archive/2021/GCP_CarbonBudget_2021.pdf.
45Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide: Full Record, GLOBAL MONITORING LABORATORY,
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/mlo.html (last visited Nov. 15, 2023).
46

Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide: Growth Rate, GLOBAL MONITORING LABORATORY
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/gr.html (last visited Nov. 15, 2023).
47

39

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

37.

Figure 3 indicates the tight nexus between the sharp increase in emissions from the

combustion of fossil fuels and the steep rise of atmospheric concentrations of CO2.

Figure 3: Atmospheric CO2 Concentration and Annual Emissions48
38.

Because of the increased burning of fossil fuel products, concentrations ofgreenhouse gases in the atmosphere are now at an unprecedented level, one not seen in at least
three million years.49
39.

As greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere, the Earth radiates less energy

back to space. This accumulation and associated disruption of the Earth’s energy balance have a
myriad of environmental and physical consequences, including, but not limited to, the following:a.

Warming of the Earth’s average surface temperature, both locally andglobally, and increased frequency and intensity of heat waves. To date, global average surface
Rebecca Lindsey, Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, CLIMATE.GOV (May 12,2023),
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-changeatmospheric-carbon-dioxide.
48

More CO2 than ever before in 3 million years, shows unprecedented computer simulation,
SCIENCE
DAILY
(Apr.
3,
2019),
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190403155436.htm.
49

40

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

temperatures have risen approximately 1.09°C (1.96°F) above preindustrial temperatures;
temperatures in particular locations have risen more.
b.

Changes to the global climate generally, bringing about longer droughts anddry periods interspersed with fewer and more severe periods of precipitation, and associatedimpacts to the quantity and quality of water resources available to both human and ecologicalsystems.
c.

Increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events due toincreases in evaporation, evapotranspiration, and precipitation, a consequence of the warming
atmosphere’s increased ability to hold moisture.
d.

Adverse impacts on human health associated with extreme weather,

extreme heat, worsening air quality, and vector-borne illnesses.
e.

Flooding and inundation of land and infrastructure, increased erosion,

higher wave run-up and tides, increased frequency and severity of storm surges, saltwater
intrusion, and other impacts of higher sea levels.
f.

Sea level rise, due to the thermal expansion of warming ocean waters andrunoff from melting glaciers and ice sheets.
g.

Ocean acidification, primarily due to the increased uptake of atmosphericcarbon dioxide by the oceans.
h.

Changes to terrestrial and marine ecosystems, and consequent impacts on

the populations and ranges of flora and fauna.
40.

Chicago specifically has seen environmental and physical consequences, including

winters warming by almost four degrees since 1980, winter ice coverage decreasing on Lake

41

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

Michigan and smaller lakes in the area, several major heat waves, shifts in the water cycle
including less snow and earlier snowmelt, and heavy rainfall events occurring twice as frequently.
41.

As further discussed below, these consequences of Defendants’ tortious anddeceptive conduct and its exacerbation of the climate crisis are already impacting Chicago, its
communities, its people’s health, and its natural resources, and these impacts will continue toincrease in severity. Absent Defendants’ tortious and deceptive conduct and resultant contributions
to global warming, these harmful effects would have been far less extreme than those currently
occurring. Similarly, future harmful effects would also have been far less detrimental—or would
have been avoided entirely.50
42.

From at least 1965 until the present, Defendants unduly inflated the market forfossil fuel products by aggressively promoting the use of these products while knowing theirassociated dangers, and by misrepresenting and concealing the hazards of those products todeceive consumers and the public about the consequences of everyday use of fossil fuel products.
Consequently, substantially more anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been emitted into theenvironment than would have been emitted absent Defendants’ tortious and deceptive conduct.
43.

By quantifying GHG pollution attributable to the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ products

and conduct, climatic and environmental responses to those emissions are also calculable and canbe attributed to the Fossil Fuel Defendants both on an individual and an aggregate basis.51

See, e.g., Peter U. Clark et al., Consequences of Twenty-First-Century Policy for MultiMillennial Climate and Sea-Level Change, 6 NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE 360, 365 (2016) (“Ourmodelling suggests that the human carbon footprint of about [470 billion tons] by 2000 . . . hasalready committed Earth to a [global mean sea level] rise of ~1.7m (range of 1.2 to 2.2 m).”).
50

See Richard Heede, Tracing anthropogenic carbon dioxide and methane emissions to fossil fuelandcementproducers,
1854–2010,
122
CLIMATIC CHANGE
229(2013),
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-0986-y.
51

42

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

44.

Defendants’ tortious, deceptive, and unconscionable conduct, as alleged herein,caused a substantial portion of the global atmospheric GHG concentrations, and the past, ongoing,
and future disruptions to the environment—and consequent injuries to Chicago, its communities,
and its resources—associated therewith.
45.

Defendants, individually and collectively, have substantially and measurably

contributed to Chicago’s climate crisis-related injuries.
46.

Defendants have known for decades that fossil fuels—their chief products—are theprimary cause of climate change and that, if unabated, climate change could result in catastrophic
impacts, including droughts, flooding, and severe weather events that would impose enormous
harms on cities such as Chicago. Despite this knowledge, these corporations and their tradeassociations have embarked on tobacco-industry-style campaigns to deceive and mislead the
public about the damaging nature of their fossil fuel products. These campaigns initially took theform of denial of the reality of climate change or attempts to cast the science surrounding theseissues as uncertain or subject to reasonable debate. Later, these campaigns transformed in part tofalsely suggest that continued consumption of Defendants’ products is consonant with mitigatingclimate change.
B.

Defendants Went to Great Lengths to Understand the Dangers Associated with
Fossil Fuel Products, and Either Knew or Should Have Known of Those
Dangers.

47.

Defendants have known about the potential warming effects of GHG emissions

since as early as the 1950s, and they developed a sophisticated understanding of climate changethat far exceeded the knowledge of the general public. Although it was concealed at the time, the43FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

industry’s knowledge was uncovered in 2015 by journalists at Inside Climate News and the Los
Angeles Times, among others.52
48.

In 1954, geochemist Harrison Brown and his colleagues at the California Instituteof Technology wrote to API, informing the trade association of their finding that fossil fuels had
caused atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to increase by about five percent since 1840.53 API
continued to fund the scientists for various research projects and measurements of carbon dioxide,
but the results were never published.54 In 1957, H.R. Brannon of Humble Oil Company (apredecessor-in-interest to Exxon) measured an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide attributable
to fossil fuels, similar to—and in agreement with—that measured by Harrison Brown.55
49.

In 1959, API organized an oil industry celebration in New York City.56 High-leveloil industry executives were in attendance, and one of the keynote speakers was the nuclear
physicist, Edward Teller. Mr. Teller warned the industry that “a temperature rise corresponding to
a 10 percent increase in carbon dioxide will be sufficient to melt the icecap and submerge . . . [a]ll

See, e.g., Neela Banerjee et al., Exxon’s Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels’ Role in Global
Warming
Decades
Ago,
INSIDE
CLIMATE
NEWS(Sept.
16,2015),
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/16092015/exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-rolein-global-warming/; Katie Jennings et al., How Exxon went from leader to skeptic on climatechange research, L.A. TIMES (Oct. 23, 2015), https://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-research; Sarah
Jerving et al., What Exxon knew about the Earth’s melting Arctic, L.A. TIMES (Oct. 9, 2015),
https://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/; Amy Lieberman & Susanne Rust, Big Oil Braced for
Global Warming While It Fought Regulations, L.A. TIMES (Dec. 31, 2015),
https://graphics.latimes.com/oil-operations.
52

Benjamin Franta, Early oil industry knowledge of CO2 and global warming, 8 NATURE CLIMATECHANGE 1024, 1024 (2018).
53

54

Id.

Id.; H. R. Brannon, Jr. et al., Radiocarbon evidence on the dilution of atmospheric and oceaniccarbon by carbon from fossil fuels, 38 AM. GEOPHYSICAL UNION TRANSACTIONS 643, 644-46(1957).
55

See Allan Nevins & Robert G. Dunlop, Energy and Man: A Symposium (1960); see also Franta,
supra note 53, at 1024.
56

44

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

the coastal cities.” Mr. Teller added that since “a considerable percentage of the human race lives
in coastal regions, [he] think[s] that this chemical contamination is more serious than most people
tend to believe.”57 Following his speech, Mr. Teller was asked to “summarize briefly the danger
from increased carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere in this century.” He responded that “there
is a possibility the icecaps will start melting and the level of the oceans will begin to rise.”58
50.

“In 1962, Marion King Hubbert, Chief Geology Consultant at Shell and former

director of its research labs, produced a book-length report on the earth’s Energy Resources for acommittee of the National Academy of Sciences. The report, which draws heavily upon a 1956
analysis [Mr.] Hubbert prepared for [API], demonstrates Shell’s profound understanding of theearth’s energy balance, including the differences in the reflection of long- and short-wave solar
radiation back into space, the role of global atmospheric temperatures in driving global weather,and the intrinsic and delicate natural balance between the heat energy absorbed by plants throughphotosynthesis with the equivalent energy released by plant matter through natural decay.”59
51.

In 1965, the president of API, Frank Ikard, addressed leaders of the petroleum

industry at the trade association’s annual meeting. Mr. Ikard relayed the findings of a recent report
to industry leaders, saying, “[o]ne of the most important predictions of the report is that carbon
dioxide is being added to the earth’s atmosphere by the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas at sucha rate that by the year 2000 the heat balance will be so modified as possibly to cause marked
changes in climate beyond local or even national efforts,” and quoting the report’s finding that“the pollution from internal combustion engines is so serious, and is growing so fast, that an
57

Edward Teller, Energy Patterns of the Future, in Energy and Man: A Symposium, at 58 (1960).

58

Id. at 70.

A Crack in the Shell: New Documents Expose a Hidden Climate History (April 2018), CENTER
FOR INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (2018), https://www.ciel.org/reports/a-crack-in-theshell/.
59

45

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

alternative nonpolluting means of powering automobiles, buses, and trucks is likely to become anational necessity.”60
52.

Thus, at least by 1965, Defendants and their predecessors-in-interest were awarethat the scientific community had found that fossil fuel products, if their use continued to grow,would cause global warming by the end of the century, and that such global warming would havewide-ranging and costly consequences.
53.

In 1968, API received a report from the Stanford Research Institute, which it had

hired to assess the state of research on environmental pollutants, including carbon dioxide. 61 The
assessment stated: “Significant temperature changes are almost certain to occur by the year 2000,
and . . . there seems to be no doubt that the potential damage to our environment could be severe.”
The scientists warned of “melting of the Antarctic ice cap” and informed API that “[p]ast andpresent studies of CO2 are detailed and seem to explain adequately the present state of CO2 in theatmosphere.” What was missing, the scientists said, was work on “air pollution technology and . . .
systems in which CO2 emissions would be brought under control.”62
54.

In 1969, the Stanford Research Institute delivered a supplemental report on air

pollution to API, projecting with alarming particularity that atmospheric CO2 concentrations
would reach 370 ppm by 2000.63 This projection turned out to almost exactly match the actual CO2Frank Ikard, Proceedings 1965: Meeting the Challenges of 1966, AM. PETROLEUM INST., at 13(1965) https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5348130-1965-API-Proceedings.
60

E. Robinson & R.C. Robbins, Sources, abundance, and fate of atmospheric pollutants, SMOKE& FUMES, at 109-10 (1968) https://www.smokeandfumes.org/documents/document16 (last visited
Nov. 15, 2023).
61

62

Id. at 108, 112.

63

Id. at 3.
46

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

concentrations measured in 2000 of 369.64 ppm.64 The report explicitly connected the rise in CO2
levels to the combustion of fossil fuels, finding it “unlikely that the observed rise in atmospheric
CO2 has been due to changes in the biosphere.”65 By virtue of their membership and participationin API at that time, the Fossil Fuel Defendants received or should have received the Stanford
Research Institute reports, and thus were on notice of the conclusions in those reports.66
55.

Continuing through the 1970s and beyond, Defendants continued to devoteresources to understanding the role that GHG emissions play in creating global climate change,
and they continued to share what they found among themselves.
56.

Among other Defendants, “Shell was actively supporting research that clearly

underscored the dangers posed by burning its fossil fuel products from the mid-1970s.”67
57.

In 1977, James Black of Exxon gave a presentation to Exxon executives on the“greenhouse effect,” which was summarized in an internal memo the following year. Mr. Black
reported that “current scientific opinion overwhelmingly favors attributing atmospheric carbon
dioxide increase to fossil fuel consumption,” and that doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide would,
according to the best climate model available, “produce a mean temperature increase of about 2°C
to 3°C over most of the earth,” with two to three times as much warming at the poles.68 Mr. Black

GlobalMean
CO2MixingRatios(ppm):
Observations,NASA,
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ghgases/Fig1A.ext.txt (last visited Nov. 15, 2023).
64

65

Robinson & Robbins, supra note 61, at 19.

Abstracts of the Stanford Research Institute studies were included in a 1972 API status report toits members. See Environmental Research: A Status Report, AM. PETROLEUM INST., at 103 (Jan.
1972) http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED066339.pdf.
66

Matthew Green, Lost Decade: How Shell Downplayed Early Warnings Over Climate Change,
DESMOG (Mar. 31, 2023), https://www.desmog.com/2023/03/31/lost-decade-how-shelldownplayed-early-warnings-over-climate-change/.
67

J.F. Black, Memo to F.G. Turpin on Greenhouse Effect for Exxon Corporation Management
Committee, Exxon Research and Engineering Co. re The Greenhouse Effect, EXXON RESEARCHAND
ENGINEERING
CO.,
at
2,
23
(June
6,
1978)
68

47

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

reported that the impacts of global warming would include “more rainfall,” which would “benefit
some areas and would harm others,” and that “[s]ome countries would benefit, but others could
have their agricultural output reduced or destroyed.” “Even those nations which are favored,
however, would be damaged for a while since their agricultural and industrial patterns have been
established on the basis of the present climate.” Finally, Mr. Black reported that “[p]resent thinking
holds that man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding
changes in energy strategies might become critical.”69 The figure below, reproduced from Black’s
memo, illustrates Exxon’s understanding of the timescale and magnitude of global warming thatits products would cause.

Figure 4: Future Global Warming Predicted Internally by Exxon in 197870
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2805568-1978-Exxon-Presentation-on-GreenhouseEffect.
69

Id. at 2.

Id. at 26 (The company predicted global warming of 1°C to 3°C by 2050, with 10°C warmingin polar regions. The difference between the lower dashed and solid curves prior to 1977 represents
global warming that Exxon believed may already have been occurring).
70

48

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

58.

In 1979, an internal Exxon memorandum stated, “The most widely held theory[about the increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere] is that: The increase is due to fossil
fuel combustion; [i]ncreasing CO2 concentration will cause a warming of the earth’s surface; [andt]he present trend of fossil fuel consumption will cause dramatic environmental effects before theyear 2050. . . . The potential problem is great and urgent.” The memo added that, if limits were notplaced on fossil fuel production, the following would occur:
Noticeable temperature changes would occur around 2010 as the [CO2]concentration reaches 400 ppm. Significant climatic changes occur around 2035
when the concentration approaches 500 ppm. A doubling of the pre-industrial
concentration [i.e., 580 ppm] occurs around 2050. The doubling would bring about
dramatic changes in the world’s environment[.]71
59.

The memo highlighted that there was “no practical means” to capture and store

carbon emissions and so “dramatic changes in patterns of energy use would be required” to avoid
environmental damage. Significantly, in order to limit CO2 emissions to avoid these harms, fossil
fuel emissions would have to peak in the 1990s and alternative energies must be rapidly deployed.
Eighty percent of fossil fuel resources would remain undeveloped, thus “coal and possibly otherfossil fuel resources could not be utilized to an appreciable extent.” Certain fossil fuels, such as
shale oil, could not be substantially exploited at all.72
60.

Those projections proved remarkably accurate. Annual average atmospheric CO2

concentrations surpassed 400 ppm in 2015 for the first time in millions of years. 73 Limiting theCO2 concentration in the atmosphere to 440 ppm, or a 50 percent increase over preindustrial levels,
W.L. Ferrall, Memo to Dr. R.L. Hirsch on Controlling CO2 Concentration in the Atmosphere,
EXXON RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING CO., at 1-2, 5 (Oct. 16, 1979)
https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mqwl0228.
71

72

Id.

Nicola Jones, How the World Passed a Carbon Threshold and Why It Matters, YALE ENV’T 360(Jan. 26, 2017), http://e360.yale.edu/features/how-the-world-passed-a-carbon-threshold-400ppmand-why-it-matters.
73

49

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

which the Exxon memo said was “assumed to be a relatively safe level for the environment,”
would require fossil fuel emissions to peak in the 1990s and non-fossil energy systems to be rapidly
deployed. Eighty percent of fossil fuel resources, the memo calculated, would have to be left in
the ground to avoid doubling atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Certain fossil fuels, such as shaleoil, could not be substantially exploited at all.74
61.

But instead of heeding these dire and repeated warnings, in November 1979,

according to internal correspondence, Exxon urged “a very aggressive defensive program in . . .
atmospheric science and climate because there [wa]s a good probability that legislation affecting[its] business w[ould] be passed.”75 It urged an expanded research effort to “influence possible
legislation on environmental controls” and suggested the formation of a “small task force” toevaluate a potential program in CO2 and climate, acid rain, carcinogens, fine particulates, and otherpollution issues caused by fossil fuels.76
62.

In 1979, API and its members, including the Fossil Fuel Defendants, convened a

Task Force to monitor and share cutting-edge climate research among members of the oil industry.
This Climate and Energy Task Force (hereinafter referred to as “CO2 Task Force”) included seniorscientists and engineers from nearly every major U.S. and multinational oil and gas company—
including Exxon, Mobil, Amoco, Phillips, Texaco, Shell, and Standard Oil of Ohio, as well asStandard Oil of California and Gulf Oil, the predecessors to Chevron—and was charged with
monitoring research, evaluating the implications of emerging science for the petroleum and gas

74

Ferrall, supra note 71 at 3, 6-7.

Henry Shaw, Memo from H. Shaw to H.N. Weinberg Regarding Research in Atmospheric
Science, at 2 (Nov. 19, 1979).
75

76

Id. at 1-2.
50

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

industries, and identifying where potential reductions in GHG emissions from Defendants’ fossil
fuel products could be made.77
63.

In 1979, a paper prepared by API for the CO2 Task Force asserted that CO2

concentrations were rising, and predicted that, although global warming would occur, it would
likely go undetected until approximately the year 2000 because its effects were being temporarilymasked by a natural cooling trend, which would revert to a warming trend around 1990, adding to
the warming caused by CO2.78
64.

In 1980, at the invitation of the CO2 Task Force, climate expert J. Laurmandelivered to API members a presentation providing a “complete technical discussion” of global
warming caused by fossil fuels, including “the scientific basis and technical evidence of CO2
buildup, impact on society, methods of modeling and their consequences, uncertainties, policy
implications, and conclusions that can be drawn from present knowledge.”79 Mr. Laurman
informed the CO2 Task Force of the “scientific consensus on the potential for large future climatic
response to increased CO2 levels” and that there was “strong empirical evidence that [the carbon
dioxide] rise [was] caused by anthropogenic release of CO2, mainly from fossil fuel burning.”80
According to Mr. Laurman, unless fossil fuel production and use were controlled, atmospheric

Neela Banerjee, Exxon’s Oil Industry Peers Knew About Climate Dangers in the 1970s, Too,
INSIDE CLIMATE NEWS (Dec. 22, 2015), https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122015/exxonmobil-oil-industry-peers-knew-about-climate-change-dangers-1970s-american-petroleuminstitute-api-shell-chevron-texaco/.
77

R.J. Campion, Memorandum from RJ Campion to J.T. Burgess Regarding the API’s Background
Paper on CO2 Effects (Sept. 6, 1979), https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/lqwl0228.
78

J. J. Nelson, Letter to AQ-9 Task Force regarding The CO2 Problem; Addressing Research
AgendaDevelopment,
at
2
(Mar.
18,
1980)
https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/gffl0228.
79

80

Id. at 9-10 (full capitalization in original removed).
51

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

carbon dioxide would be twice preindustrial levels by 2038, using a three percent per annum
growth of atmospheric release rate, with “likely impacts” along the following trajectory:
1°C RISE (2005): BARELY NOTICEABLE
2.5°C RISE (2038): MAJOR ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES,STRONG REGIONAL DEPENDENCE
5°C RISE (2067): GLOBALLY CATASTROPHIC EFFECTS
Mr. Laurman warned the CO2 Task Force that global warming of 2.5°C would “bring[] world
economic growth to a halt.” The minutes of the meeting, which were distributed to the entire CO2
Task Force, show that one of the Task Force’s goals was “to help develop ground rules for . . . thecleanup of fuels as they relate to CO2 creation,” and the Task Force discussed potential research
into the market and technical requirements for a worldwide “energy source changeover” awayfrom fossil fuels.81
65.

In 1980, Imperial Oil Limited, an Exxon subsidiary, reported to managers and staff

at affiliated Esso and Exxon companies that there was “no doubt” that fossil fuels were aggravating
the build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that “[t]echnology exist[ed] to remove CO2 from stackgases but removal of only 50 [percent] of the CO2 would double the cost of power generation.”82
66.

In December 1980, an Exxon manager distributed a memorandum on the “CO2Greenhouse Effect” attributing future buildup of carbon dioxide to fossil fuel use, and explainingthat internal calculations indicated that atmospheric carbon dioxide could double by around 2060,“most likely” resulting in global warming of approximately 3.0 ± 1.5°C.83 Calculations predicting

81

Id. at 1, 13.

Imperial Oil Ltd., Review of Environmental Protection Activities for 1978–1979, at 2 (Aug. 6,
1980)
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2827784-1980-Imperial-Oil-Review-ofEnvironmental.html#document/.
82

Henry Shaw & P. P. McCall, Memorandum to T.K. Kett on Exxon Research and Engineering
Company’s Technological Forecast: CO2 Greenhouse Effect, at 3 (Dec. 18, 1980)
83

52

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

a lower temperature increase, such as 0.25°C, were “not held in high regard by the scientificcommunity[.]” The memo also reported that such global warming would cause “increased
rainfall[] and increased evaporation,” which would have a “dramatic impact on soil moisture, andin turn, on agriculture” and other “serious global problems[.]” The memo called for “society” to
pay the bill, estimating that some adaptive measures would cost no more than “a few percent” ofGross National Product.84 Henry Shaw also reported that Exxon had studied various responses foravoiding or reducing a carbon dioxide build-up, including “stopping all fossil fuel combustion at
the 1980 rate” and “investigat[ing] the market penetration of non-fossil fuel technologies.” Thememo estimated that such non-fossil energy technologies “would need about 50 years to penetrate
and achieve roughly half of the total [energy] market.”85 The memo included the figure below,
which illustrates both the global warming anticipated by Exxon and the company’s understandingthat significant global warming would occur:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2805573-1980-Exxon-Memo-Summarizing-CurrentModels-And.html.
84

Id. at 3-5.

85

Id. at 5-6.
53

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

Figure 5: Future Global Warming Predicted Internally by Exxon in 198086
67.

In February 1981, Exxon’s Contract Research Office prepared and distributed a“Scoping Study on CO2” to the leadership of Exxon Research and Engineering Company.87 The
study reviewed Exxon’s carbon dioxide research and considered whether to expand its research on
carbon dioxide or global warming further. It recommended against expanding those research areas
because Exxon’s current research programs were sufficient for achieving the company’s goals of
closely monitoring federal research, building credibility and public relations value, and developing
in-house expertise regarding CO2 and global warming, and noted that Exxon employees wereactively monitoring and keeping the company apprised of outside research developments,
Id. at 12. The company anticipated a doubling of carbon dioxide by around 2060 and that theoceans would delay the warming effect by a few decades, leading to approximately 3°C warmingby the end of the century.
86

G.H. Long, Letter to P.J. Lucchesi et al. Regarding Atmospheric CO Scoping Study, EXXONRESEARCHAND
ENGINEERING
CO.
(Feb.
5,
1981),
https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yxfl0228.
87

54

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

including those on climate modeling and “CO2-induced effects.” In discussing “options for
reducing CO2 build-up in the atmosphere,” the study noted that although capturing CO2 from fluegases (i.e., exhaust gas produced by combustion) was technologically possible, the cost was high,and “energy conservation or shifting to renewable energy sources[] represent[ed] the only options
that might make sense.”88
68.

Thus, by 1981, Exxon and other fossil fuel companies were actively monitoring all

aspects of CO2 and global warming research, and Exxon had recognized that a shift away fromfossil fuels and towards renewable energy sources would be necessary to avoid a large CO2 buildup in the atmosphere and resultant global warming.
69.

An Exxon scientist warned colleagues in a 1981 internal memorandum that “future

developments in global data gathering and analysis, along with advances in climate modeling, may
provide strong evidence for a delayed CO2 effect of a truly substantial magnitude,” and that undercertain circumstances it would be “very likely that we will unambiguously recognize the threat by
the year 2000.”89 The memo expressed concern about the potential effects of unabated CO2
emissions from Defendants’ fossil fuel products, saying, “it is distinctly possible that [Exxon
Planning Division’s] scenario will later produce effects which will indeed be catastrophic (at least
for a substantial fraction of the world’s population).”90
70.

In 1981, Exxon stated its position on the growth of carbon dioxide in theatmosphere. According to Exxon, growing fossil fuel consumption would lead atmospheric CO2

88

Id.

R.W. Cohen, Memorandum to W. Glass on Possible Emission Consequences of Fossil Fuel
Consumption (Aug. 18, 1981), http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1981-exxon-memo-onpossible-emission-consequences-of-fossil-fuel-consumption.
89

90

Id.
55

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

levels to double, and doubling CO2 levels would lead to a global average temperature rise of 3oC.
This would cause “[m]ajor shifts in rainfall/agriculture” and “polar ice may melt.”91
71.

In 1982, another report prepared for API by climate scientists recognized that theatmospheric CO2 concentration had risen significantly compared to the concentration at the
beginning of the industrial revolution. It went further, warning that “[s]uch a warming can haveserious consequences for man’s comfort and survival since patterns of aridity and rainfall canchange, the height of the sea level can increase considerably and the world food supply can beaffected.”92 Exxon’s own modeling research confirmed this.93 In a 1982 internal memorandum,
Exxon’s Corporate Research and Science Laboratories acknowledged a consensus “that a doublingof atmospheric CO2 from its pre-industrial revolution value would result in an average global
temperature rise of (3.0 ± 1.5)°C [5.4 ± 2.7 °F]” as well as “unanimous agreement in the scientificcommunity that a temperature increase of this magnitude would bring about significant changes inthe earth’s climate[.]”94
72.

Also in 1982, Exxon’s Environmental Affairs Manager distributed a primer on

climate change to Exxon management; it was “restricted to Exxon personnel and not [to be]

Henry Shaw, CO2 Position Statement, INSIDE CLIMATE NEWS (May 15, 1981) (footnote omitted),
https://insideclimatenews.org/documents/exxon-position-co2-1981.
91

Climate Models and CO2 Warming: A Selective Review and Summary, AM. PETROLEUM INST.,
at 4 (Mar. 1982), https://www.climatefiles.com/trade-group/american-petroleum-institute/apiclimate-models-and-co2-warming-a-selective-review-and-summary/.
92

See Roger W. Cohen, Memorandum to A.M. Natkin Summarizing Climate Modeling and CO2
Greenhouse Effect Research, EXXON RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING CO. (Sept. 2, 1982),
https://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1982-exxon-memo-summarizing-climate-modelingand-co2-greenhouse-effect-research/.
93

94

Id. at 1.
56

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

distributed externally.”95 The primer explained the science behind climate change, confirmed fossil
fuel combustion as a primary anthropogenic contributor to global warming, and estimated a CO2
doubling by 2090 with a “Most Probable Temperature Increase” of more than 2°C over the 1979
level, as shown in the figure on the following page.96 The report also warned that “disturbances inthe existing global water distribution balance would have dramatic impact on soil moisture, and in
turn, on agriculture,” and that the American Midwest would become much drier. It further warnedof “potentially catastrophic effects that must be considered[.]”97 It concluded that “[a]ll biologicalsystems are likely to be affected,” and “the most severe economic effects could be on
agriculture.”98

M.B. Glaser, Memorandum to R.W. Cohen et al. re CO2 “Greenhouse” Effect, EXXON RESEARCHENGINEERING CO., at 1 (Nov. 12, 1982), https://insideclimatenews.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/09/1982-Exxon-Primer-on-CO2-Greenhouse-Effect.pdf.
95

AND
96

Id. at 1, 7.

97

Id. at 11.

98

Id. at 14.
57

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

Figure 6: Exxon’s Internal Prediction of Future CO2 Increase andGlobal Warming from 198299
73.

The report recommended studying “soil erosion, salinization, or the collapse of

irrigation systems” in order to understand how society might be affected and might respond to
global warming, as well as “[h]ealth effects” and “stress associated with climate related famine or
migration[.]”100 The report estimated that undertaking “[s]ome adaptive measures” (but not all of
Id. at 7. The company predicted a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations above
preindustrial levels by around 2090 (left curve), with a temperature increase of more than 2° Coverthe 1979 level (right curve).
99

100

Id. at 14.
58

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

them) would cost “a few percent of the gross national product estimated in the middle of the next
century” (gross national product was $25,640 billion in 2022).101 To avoid such impacts, the reportdiscussed a scientific analysis which studied energy alternatives and requirements for introducing
them into widespread use, and which recommended that “vigorous development of non-fossil
energy sources be initiated as soon as possible.”102 The primer also noted that the analysis indicatedthat other greenhouse gases related to fossil fuel production, such as methane (which is a more
powerful GHG than CO2), “may significantly contribute to a global warming,” and that concerns
over CO2 would be reduced if fossil fuel use were decreased due to “high price, scarcity, [or]unavailability.”103 “Mitigation of the ‘greenhouse effect’ would require major reductions in fossil
fuel combustion,” the primer stated.104 The primer was widely distributed to Exxon leadership.
74.

In September 1982, the Director of Exxon’s Theoretical and Mathematical Sciences

Laboratory, Roger Cohen, wrote Alvin Natkin of Exxon’s Office of Science and Technology tosummarize Exxon’s internal research on climate modeling.105 Mr. Cohen reported:[O]ver the past several years a clear scientific consensus has emerged regarding the
expected climatic effects of increased atmospheric CO2. The consensus is that adoubling of atmospheric CO2 from its pre-industrial revolution value would resultin an average global temperature rise of (3.0 ± 1.5) °C . . . . The temperature rise ispredicted to be distributed nonuniformly over the earth, with above-averagetemperature elevations in the polar regions and relatively small increases near theequator. There is unanimous agreement in the scientific community that atemperature increase of this magnitude would bring about significant changes inthe earth’s climate, including rainfall distribution and alterations in the biosphere.
The time required for doubling of atmospheric CO2 depends on future worldconsumption of fossil fuels. Current projections indicate that doubling will occur
sometime in the latter half of the 21st century. The models predict that CO2 climate
Id.; see also Gross National Product, FED. RESERVE BANK
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GNPA (last visited Nov. 15, 2023).
101

102

Glaser, supra note 95 at 18.

103

Id. at 18, 29.

104

Id. at 2.

105

Cohen, supra note 89.
59

OF

ST. LOUISFILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

changes should be observable well before doubling. It is generally believed that thefirst CO2-induced temperature increase will not be observable until around the year
2000.
Mr. Cohen described Exxon’s own climate modeling experiments, reporting that they produced “aglobal averaged temperature increase that falls well within the range of the scientific consensus,”
which were “consistent with the published predictions of more complex climate models,” and were“also in agreement with estimates of the global temperature distribution during a certain prehistoric
period when the earth was much warmer than today.” “In summary,” Mr. Cohen wrote, “the resultsof our research are in accord with the scientific consensus on the effect of increased atmospheric
CO2 on climate.”
75.

Throughout the early 1980s, at Exxon’s direction, Exxon climate scientist Henry

Shaw forecasted emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel use. Those estimates were incorporated into
Exxon’s twenty-first century energy projections and were distributed among Exxon’s various
divisions. Mr. Shaw’s conclusions included an expectation that atmospheric CO2 concentrations
would double in 2090 per the Exxon model, with an attendant 2.3–5.6°F average global
temperature increase.106
76.

During the 1980s, many Defendants formed their own research units focused on

climate modeling. API, including the API CO2 Task Force, provided a forum for the Fossil Fuel
Defendants to share their research efforts and corroborate their findings related to anthropogenic
GHG emissions.107

Neela Banerjee, More Exxon Documents Show How Much It Knew About Climate 35 Years
Ago,
INSIDE
CLIMATE
NEWS
(Dec.
1,
2015),
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/01122015/documents-exxons-early-co2-position-seniorexecutives-engage-and-warming-forecast/.
106

107

Banerjee, supra note 77.
60

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

77.

In 1987, Shell published an internal “brief for companies of the Royal Dutch/Shell

Group,” which includes its U.S. based subsidiaries, titled “Air pollution: an oil industry
perspective,” in which the company described the greenhouse effect, occurring “largely as a resultof the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.”108 And it acknowledged the “concern that further
increases in carbon dioxide levels could cause climatic changes, notably a rise in overalltemperature, having major environmental, social and economic consequences.”109
78.

In 1988, the Shell Greenhouse Effect Working Group issued a confidential internalreport, “The Greenhouse Effect,” which acknowledged global warming’s anthropogenic nature:“Man-made carbon dioxide, released into and accumulated in the atmosphere, is believed to warm
the earth through the so-called greenhouse effect.” The authors also noted the burning of fossil
fuels as a primary driver of CO2 buildup and warned that warming could “create significant
changes in sea level, ocean currents, precipitation patterns, regional temperature and weather.”
They further pointed to the potential for “direct operational consequences” of sea level rise on“offshore installations, coastal facilities and operations (e.g., platforms, harbors, refineries,
depots).”110
79.

The Shell report noted that “by the time the global warming becomes detectable it

could be too late to take effective countermeasures to reduce the effects or even to stabilise thesituation.” The authors mentioned the need to consider policy changes, noting that “the potential
implications for the world are . . . so large that policy options need to be considered much earlier,”

Shell Briefing Service, Air pollution: an oil industry perspective 4 (1987),
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24359057-shell-briefing-service-air-pollution-an-oilindustry-perspective-nr1-1987.
108

109

Id. at 5.

The Greenhouse Effect, SHELL INTERNATIONALE PETROLEUM, at 1, 27 (May 1988)
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4411090-Document3.html#document/p9/a411239.
110

61

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

and that research should be “directed more to the analysis of policy and energy options than tostudies of what we will be facing exactly.”111
80.

Shell wrote a confidential report in 1989 that modeled CO2 emissions under“SUSTAINABLE WORLD” and “GLOBAL MERCANTILISM” scenarios. The report noted that
“SUSTAINABLE WORLD will not prevent the problem arising, but it could mitigate theproblem,” and predicted that “GLOBAL MERCANTILISM” would “most dramatically change[]”
agricultural patterns and “disrupt[] eco-systems.”112 It also predicted effects on humanity: “Thepotential refugee problem in GLOBAL MERCANTILISM could be unprecedented. . . . Conflicts
would abound. Civilisation could prove a fragile thing. The logic of SUSTAINABLE WORLD isa society choosing to channel some investments into environmental maintenance against thiscontingency.”113
81.

Shell even predicted in 1989, in its confidential scenario planning, that minimizing

emissions to prevent global warming would in turn spur innovation necessary to mitigate climatechange. It stated that conditions surrounding emissions reduction “foster[] R&D, aiding innovationnecessary to meet environmental standards.” Shell predicted that under this scenario, there would
be innovation in structural materials to support “energy conservation and transport efficiency,”
and advances in lubricants would support “efficiency rather than performance.”114

111

Id. at 1, 6.

112

Id. at 35-36.

Shell, SCENARIOS: 1989–2010: CHALLENGE AND RESPONSE, at 35-36 (1989),
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23735737-1989-oct-confidential-shell-groupplanning-scenarios-1989-2010-challenge-and-response-disc-climate-refugees-and-shift-to-nonfossil-fuels.
113

See
Shell
UK,
UK
SCENARIOS
1989
(Nov.
1989),
https://embed.documentcloud.org/documents/24359062-snippets-of-confidential-shell-uknovember-1989-scenarios.
114

62

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

82.

In 1991, a researcher for Exxon’s subsidiary Imperial Oil stated to an audience ofengineers that greenhouse gases were rising “due to the burning of fossil fuels. . . . Nobody disputes
this fact.”115
83.

Also in 1991, BP released a short film called “The Earth – What Makes Weather?”

In it, a narrator states: “Our . . . dependence on carbon-based fuels is now a cause for concern.
When coal, oil or gas are burned, they release carbon dioxide and other reactive gases.” Thenarrator then went on to explain:
As the earth gives off heat, carbon dioxide, together with water vapor, absorbs andradiates it back, acting like a blanket. . . . If world population growth is matched byenergy consumption, even more carbon dioxide will be released, making thisgreenhouse effect even stronger. An overall increase in temperature of even a few
degrees could disrupt our climate with devastating consequences. If the oceans got
warmer and the ice sheets began to melt, sea levels would rise, encroaching oncoastal lowlands. From warmer seas, more water would evaporate, making storms
and the havoc they cause more frequent. . . . Catastrophic floods could becomecommonplace, and low-lying countries like Bangladesh would be defenselessagainst them. Too much water or too little. Away from the coasts we could see a
return to the conditions which devastated America’s Midwest in the 1930s. Global
warming could repeat on a more disastrous scale the dustbowl phenomenon which
virtually destroyed farming on the Great Plains. . . . The threat of such climaticchange is now one of our most urgent concerns.116
The film was not widely distributed.
84.

The fossil fuel industry was at the forefront of carbon dioxide research for much of

the latter half of the twentieth century. It worked with many of the field’s top researchers to
produce exceptionally sophisticated studies and models. For instance, in the mid-1990s, Shellbegan developing and employing scenarios to plan how the company could respond to various
Sara Jerving et al., Special Report: What Exxon Knew About Global Warming’s Impact on the
Arctic, L.A. TIMES (Oct. 10, 2015, 12:00 AM PT), https://www.latimes.com/business/la-na-advexxon-arctic-20151011-story.html.
115

Vatan Hüzeir, BP Knew the Truth About Climate Change 30 Years Ago, FOLLOW THE MONEY(May 26, 2020), https://www.ftm.nl/artikelen/bp-video-climate-change-1990-engels; see also This
Earth
–
What
Makes
Weather?,
BP VIDEO LIBRARY(Jan. 1,
1991),
https://www.bpvideolibrary.com/record/463.
116

63

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

global forces in the future. In one scenario, published in a 1998 internal report, Shell paints aneerily prescient scene:
In 2010, a series of violent storms causes extensive damage to the eastern coast of
the US. Although it is not clear whether the storms are caused by climate change,
people are not willing to take further chances. The insurance industry refuses to
accept liability, setting off a fierce debate over who is liable: the insurance industry,or the government. After all, two successive IPCC reports since 1995 havereinforced the human connection to climate change . . . Following the storms, acoalition of environmental NGOs brings a class-action suit against the US
government and fossil-fuel companies on the grounds of neglecting what scientists(including their own) have been saying for years: that something must be done. A
social reaction to the use of fossil fuels grows, and individuals become ‘vigilanteenvironmentalists’ in the same way, a generation earlier, they had become fiercely
anti-tobacco. Direct-action campaigns against companies escalate. Youngconsumers, especially, demand action.117
85.

Fossil fuel companies did not just consider climate change impacts in scenarios;

they also incorporated those impacts in their on-the-ground planning. In the mid-1990s, Exxon,
Shell, and Imperial Oil (Exxon) jointly undertook the Sable Offshore Energy Project in Nova
Scotia. The project’s own Environmental Impact Statement declared, “The impact of a global
warming sea-level rise may be particularly significant in Nova Scotia. The long-term tide gauge
records at a number of locations along the N.S. coast have shown sea level has been rising overthe past century. . . . For the design of coastal and offshore structures, an estimated rise in waterlevel, due to global warming, of 0.5 m [1.64 feet] may be assumed for the proposed project life
(25 years).”118
86.

Climate change research conducted by Defendants and their industry associations

frequently acknowledged uncertainties in their climate modeling. Those uncertainties, however,Group
Scenarios
1998–2020,
at115,
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4430277-27-1-Compiled.html.
117

118

(1998),

Sable Project Development Plan: Environmental Impact Statement, EXXONMOBIL, at 4-77
(Feb.
1996),
https://web.archive.org/web/20151106083051/http://soep.com/about-theproject/development-plan-application/.
118

64

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

were largely with respect to the magnitude and timing of climate impacts resulting from fossil fuelconsumption, not with respect to whether significant changes would eventually occur. Defendants’researchers and the researchers at their industry associations harbored little doubt that climatechange was occurring and that fossil fuel products were, and are, the primary cause.
87.

Despite the overwhelming information about the threats to people and the planet

posed by the continued unabated use of their fossil fuel products, the Fossil Fuel Defendants failed
to act as they reasonably should have to avoid or mitigate those dire adverse impacts. The Fossil
Fuel Defendants instead undertook affirmative efforts to promote their fossil fuel products as safe
and cast doubt in the public’s mind about the burgeoning scientific consensus on climate change,
as described below. This was an abdication of the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ responsibility toconsumers and the public, including the City, to act on their knowledge of the reasonably
foreseeable hazards of unabated production and consumption of their fossil fuel products.
C.

Defendants Did Not Disclose Known Harms Associated with the Intended Useof Fossil Fuel Products, and Instead Affirmatively Concealed Those Harms by
Engaging in a Campaign of Deception to Increase the Use of Those Products.

88.

By 1988, Defendants had amassed a compelling body of knowledge about the roleof anthropogenic greenhouse gases, specifically those emitted from the use of fossil fuel products,
in causing climate change and its cascading impacts, including disruptions to the hydrologic cycle,
extreme precipitation, extreme drought, increasing temperatures, and associated consequences forhuman communities and the environment.
89.

On notice that their products were causing global climate change and dire effects

on the planet, Defendants faced the decision whether to take steps to limit the damage that the useof fossil fuel products was causing and would continue to cause Earth’s inhabitants, including thepeople of Chicago. Before or thereafter, Defendants could and reasonably should have taken any
number of steps to mitigate the damage caused by the use of fossil fuel products. Their own
65

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

comments reveal an awareness of what steps should have been taken. In particular, Defendantsshould have warned civil society and Chicago consumers of the dangers known to Defendants of
the unabated use of fossil fuel products, and they could and should have taken reasonable steps tolimit the greenhouse gases emitted by use of fossil fuel products. Instead, the actions necessary to
mitigate the significant climate harms to the City were wrongfully delayed by Defendants’
deception. Simply put, Defendants should have issued warnings commensurate with their own
understanding of the risks posed by the expected and intended uses of fossil fuel products.
90.

Not only did Defendants fail to issue any warnings, but several key events during

the period between 1988 and 1992 prompted them to change their tactics from general researchand internal discussion on climate change to a public campaign aimed at deceiving consumers andthe public, including the inhabitants of Chicago. These key events included the following:a.

In 1988, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (“NASA”)

scientists confirmed that human activities were contributing to global warming. On June 23, 1988,
NASA scientist James Hansen’s presentation of this information to Congress engenderedsignificant news coverage and publicity for the announcement, including coverage on the front
page of The New York Times.119b.

On July 28, 1988, Senator Robert Stafford and four bipartisan co-sponsors

introduced S. 2666, “The Global Environmental Protection Act,” to regulate CO2 and othergreenhouse gases. Three more bipartisan bills to significantly reduce CO2 pollution wereintroduced over the following ten weeks, and in August, U.S. Presidential candidate George H.W.
Bush pledged that his presidency would combat the greenhouse effect with “the White House

See Peter C. Frumhoff et al., The climate responsibilities of industrial carbon producers 132
CLIMATIC CHANGE 157, 161 (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1472-5.
119

66

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

effect.”120 Political will in the United States to reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions and mitigate
the harms associated with Defendants’ fossil fuel products was gaining momentum.
c.

In December 1988, the United Nations formed the IPCC, a scientific panel

dedicated to providing the world’s governments with an objective, scientific analysis of climatechange and its environmental, political, and economic impacts.
d.

In 1990, the IPCC published its First Assessment Report on anthropogenic

climate change,121 which concluded that (1) “there is a natural greenhouse effect which alreadykeeps the Earth warmer than it would otherwise be,” and (2) thatemissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing theatmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane,chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and nitrous oxide. These increases will enhance thegreenhouse effect, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth’s
surface. The main greenhouse gas, water vapour, will increase in response to global
warming and further enhance it.122
The IPCC reconfirmed those conclusions in a 1992 supplement to the First Assessment Report.123e.

The United Nations held the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,

a major, newsworthy gathering of over 170 world governments, of which more than 100 sent theirheads of state. The Summit resulted in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change, an international environmental treaty providing protocols for future negotiations aimed at

The White House and the Greenhouse, N.Y. TIMES (May 9,
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/09/opinion/the-white-house-and-the-greenhouse.html.
120

121

1989),

See Reports, IPCC, https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/ (last visited Nov. 15, 2023).

J.T. Houghton et al., Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment, IPPC (1990)
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar1/wg1/.
122

Climate Change: The 1990 and 1992 IPCC Assessments, THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON
CLIMATE CHANGE, at 52 (1992) https://www.ipcc.ch/report/climate-change-the-ipcc-1990-and1992-assessments.
123

67

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024“stabiliz[ing] greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent
dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”124
91.

Defendants’ campaign of deception focused on concealing, discrediting, and/or

misrepresenting information that tended to support restricting the use of fossil fuels andtransitioning society to a lower-carbon future, which would thereby decrease demand for the Fossil
Fuel Defendants’ products. The campaign enabled the Fossil Fuel Defendants to continue theirbusiness practice of exploiting fossil fuel reserves and concurrently externalize the social andenvironmental costs of their fossil fuel products. Those activities ran counter to Defendants’ own
prior recognition that the science of anthropogenic climate change was clear, and that action wasneeded to avoid or mitigate dire consequences to the planet and to communities like Chicago’s.
92.

The Fossil Fuel Defendants—both on their own and jointly through industry andfront groups such as API and the GCC—funded, conceived, planned, and carried out a sustained
and widespread campaign of denial and disinformation about the existence of climate change andtheir products’ contribution to it. The campaign included a long-term pattern of direct
misrepresentations and material omissions, as well as a plan to influence consumers indirectly byaffecting public opinion through the dissemination of misleading information to the press,
government, and academia. Although the Fossil Fuel Defendants were competitors in themarketplace, they combined and collaborated with each other and with API on this publiccampaign to misdirect and stifle public knowledge in order to increase sales and protect profits.
This effort included promoting hazardous fossil fuel products through advertising campaigns thatfailed to warn of the existential risks associated with the use of those products and that wereUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNITED NATIONS, at 4 (1992),
https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf.
12468

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

designed to influence consumers to continue using the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ fossil fuel products,
irrespective of those products’ damage to communities, like that of Chicago, and the environment.
93.

In a secretly-recorded video from 2021, an Exxon executive stated:

Did we aggressively fight against some of the science? Yes.
Did we join some of these shadow groups to work against some of the early efforts?
Yes, that’s true. There’s nothing illegal about that.
We were looking out for our investments. We were looking out for ourshareholders.”12594.

For example, in 1988, Joseph Carlson, an Exxon public affairs manager, stated in

an internal memo that Exxon was “providing leadership through API in developing the petroleum
industry position” on “the greenhouse effect.”126 He then went on to describe the “Exxon Position,”
which included two important messaging tenets, among others: (1) “[e]mphasiz[ing] theuncertainty in scientific conclusions regarding the potential enhanced Greenhouse effect”; and (2)“[r]esist[ing] the overstatement and sensationalization of potential Greenhouse effect which could
lead to noneconomic development of nonfossil fuel resources.”127
95.

Reflecting on his time as an Exxon consultant in the 1980s, Professor Martin

Hoffert, a former New York University physicist who researched climate change, expressed regret
over Exxon’s “climate science denial program campaign” in his sworn testimony before Congress:[O]ur research [at Exxon] was consistent with findings of the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on human impacts of fossil fuelburning, which is that they are increasingly having a perceptible influence on
Earth’s climate. . . . If anything, adverse climate change from elevated CO2 is
proceeding faster than the average of the prior IPCC mild projections and fully
consistent with what we knew back in the early 1980’s at Exxon. . . . I was greatly
Jeff Brady, Exxon Lobbyist Caught on Video Talking About Undermining Biden’s Climate Push,
NPR (July 1, 2021, 11:37 AM ET), https://www.npr.org/2021/07/01/1012138741/exxon-lobbyistcaught-on-video-talks-about-undermining-bidens-climate-push.
125

Joseph M. Carlson, Memorandum re The Greenhouse Effect, at 7 (Aug. 3, 1988)
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3024180/1998-Exxon-Memo-on-the-GreenhouseEffect.pdf.
126

127

Id. at 7-8.
69

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

distressed by the climate science denial program campaign that Exxon’s front officelaunched around the time I stopped working as a consultant—but not collaborator—
for Exxon. The advertisements that Exxon ran in major newspapers raising doubt
about climate change were contradicted by the scientific work we had done andcontinue to do. Exxon was publicly promoting views that its own scientists knew
were wrong, and we knew that because we were the major group working on this.128
96.

“Shell shaped a series of influential industry-backed publications that downplayedor omitted key risks; emphasized scientific uncertainties; and pushed for more fossil fuels,
particularly coal.”129 In 1992, Shell put out a publication for wide external distribution on what it
called the “Basic Scientific Facts” of the “Potential Augmented Greenhouse Effect,” in which it
downplayed the scientific consensus by referring to the “relatively few established scientificfundamentals.” It also misleadingly suggested that a “particular cause” of global warming was“difficult” to identify, despite having identified the use of their products as a significant contributor
in the previous decade.130 For example, in 1985, a Shell UK environmental scientist published anarticle laying out the scientific fact that “[b]urning of fossil fuels which have taken millions ofyears to form has effectively upset the balance [of the Carbon Cycle] leading to an increase in CO2
in the atmosphere.”131

Examining the Oil Industry’s Efforts to Suppress the Truth About Climate Change: Hearing
Before the H. Comm. on Oversight and Reform, Subcomm. on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties,
116th Cong., 1st Sess., at 7-8 (Oct. 23, 2019) (statement of Martin Hoffert, Former Exxon
Consultant), https://www.congress.gov/event/116th-congress/house-event/110126.
128

Matthew Green, Lost Decade: How Shell Downplayed Early Warnings Over Climate Change,
DESMOG (Mar. 31, 2023, 21:00 PDT), https://www.desmog.com/2023/03/31/lost-decade-howshell-downplayed-early-warnings-over-climate-change/.
129

See Jan Kuyper, Shell Group Planning, Business Environment Occasional Paper, Potential
Augmented
Greenhouse
Effect:Basic
Scientific
Facts(Sept.
1992),
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24359060-1992-internal-shell-group-planningreport-potential-augmented-greenhouse-effect-and-depletion-of-the-ozone-layer.
130

T.G. Wilkinson, Why and How to Control Energy Pollution: Can Harmonisation Work?, 8
CONSERVATION&RECYCLING
7,
19(1985),
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24359067-1985-03-why-and-how-to-control-energypollution-by-tg-wilkinson-shell.
131

70

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

97.

A 1994 Shell report entitled “The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect: A Review of the

Scientific Aspects” by Royal Dutch Shell’s Peter Langcake stands in stark contrast to thecompany’s 1988 report on the same topic. Whereas before the authors had recommended
consideration of policy solutions early on, Mr. Langcake warned of the potentially dramatic“economic effects of ill-advised policy measures.” While the report recognized the IPCC
conclusions as the mainstream view, Mr. Langcake still emphasized scientific uncertainty, noting,for example, that “the postulated link between any observed temperature rise and human activities
has to be seen in relation to natural climate variability, which is still largely unpredictable.” The
Shell position is stated clearly in the report: “Scientific uncertainty and the evolution of energy
systems indicate that policies to curb greenhouse gas emissions beyond ‘no regrets’ measures
could be premature, divert resources from more pressing needs and further distort markets.”132
Shell published further reports in 1995 titled “Is Climate Change Occurring Already?” and“Climate of Concern,” both of which emphasized uncertainty surrounding the greenhouse effectthat Shell’s own internal analyses had rejected.133
98.

In 1996, Exxon released a publication called “Global Warming: Who’s Right?

Facts about a debate that’s turned up more questions than answers.” In the publication’s preface,
Exxon CEO Lee Raymond inaccurately stated that “taking drastic action immediately is
unnecessary since many scientists agree there’s ample time to better understand the climate
system.” The publication described the greenhouse effect as “unquestionably real and definitely aP. Langcake, The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect: A Review of the Scientific Aspects, SHELL
INTERNATIONALEPETROLEUM,
at
1,
9,
14
(updatedDec.
1994),
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4411099-Document11.html#document/p15/a411511.
132

A Crack in the Shell: New Documents Expose a Hidden Climate History, CENTER FOR
INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, at 10-11 (2018), https://www.ciel.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/04/A-Crack-in-the-Shell-April-2018.pdf.
133

71

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

good thing,” while ignoring the severe consequences that would result from the influence of theincreased CO2 concentration on the Earth’s climate. Instead, it characterized the greenhouse effectas simply “what makes the earth’s atmosphere livable.” Directly contradicting Exxon’s own
internal knowledge and peer-reviewed science, the publication ascribed the rise in temperaturesince the late nineteenth century to “natural fluctuations that occur over long periods of time”
rather than to the anthropogenic emissions that Exxon itself and other scientists had confirmed
were responsible. The publication also falsely challenged the computer models that projected thefuture impacts of unabated fossil fuel product consumption, including those developed by Exxon’s
own employees, as having been “proved to be inaccurate.” The publication contradicted thenumerous reports prepared by and circulated among Exxon’s staff, and by API, stating that “theindications are that a warmer world would be far more benign than many imagine . . . moderate
warming would reduce mortality rates in the U.S., so a slightly warmer climate would be more
healthful.” Mr. Raymond concluded his preface by attacking advocates for limiting the use of his
company’s fossil fuel products as “drawing on bad science, faulty logic or unrealistic
assumptions”—despite the important role that Exxon’s own scientists had played in compilingthose same scientific underpinnings.134
99.

API published an extensive report in the same year warning against concern overCO2 buildup and any need to curb consumption. The introduction stated that “there is no persuasivebasis for forcing Americans to dramatically change their lifestyles to use less oil.” 135 The authors
discouraged the further development of certain alternative energy sources, writing that

Global Warming: Who’s Right?, EXXON CORP., at 3, 5-7, (1996)
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2805542-Exxon-Global-Warming-Whos-Right.html.
134

Sally Gentille et al., Reinventing Energy: Making the Right Choices, AM. PETROLEUM INST., at2, 11, 63, 79, (1996) https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4224133-Reinventing-Energy.
135

72

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024“government agencies have advocated the increased use of ethanol and the electric car, without
the facts to support the assertion that either is superior to existing fuels and technologies” and that“[p]olicies that mandate replacing oil with specific alternative fuel technologies freeze progress at
the current level of technology, and reduce the chance that innovation will develop better
solutions.”136 The paper also denied the human connection to climate change, by falsely statingthat “no conclusive—or even strongly suggestive—scientific evidence exists that human activities
are significantly affecting sea levels, rainfall, surface temperatures or the intensity and frequencyof storms.”137 The report’s message was false but clear: “facts don’t support the arguments for
restraining oil use.”138
100.

In a speech presented at the World Petroleum Congress in Beijing in 1997 at which

many of the Defendants were present, Exxon CEO Lee Raymond reiterated those views. This time,
he presented a false dichotomy between stable energy markets and abatement of the marketing,promotion, and sale of fossil fuel products Defendants knew to be hazardous. He stated:[S]ome people . . . argue that we should drastically curtail our use of fossil fuels forenvironmental reasons . . . my belief [is] that such proposals are neither prudent norpractical. With no readily available economic alternatives on the horizon, fossil
fuels will continue to supply most of the world’s and this region’s energy for theforeseeable future.
....
Governments also need to provide a stable investment climate . . . . They should
avoid the temptation to intervene in energy markets in ways that give advantage to
one competitor over another—or one fuel over another.
....
We also have to keep in mind that most of the greenhouse effect comes from natural
sources . . . . Leaping to radically cut this tiny sliver of the greenhouse pie on the136

Id. at 2, 11.

137

Id. at 63.

138

Id. at 79.
73

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

premise that it will affect climate defies common sense and lacks foundation in ourcurrent understanding of the climate system.
....
[L]et’s agree there’s a lot we really don’t know about how climate will change inthe 21st century and beyond . . . . It is highly unlikely that the temperature in the
middle of the next century will be significantly affected whether policies areenacted now or 20 years from now. . . . It’s bad public policy to impose very costly
regulations and restrictions when their need has yet to be proven.139
101.

Imperial Oil (Exxon) CEO Robert Peterson falsely denied the establishedconnection between the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ fossil fuel products and anthropogenic climatechange in an essay in the Summer 1998 issue of Imperial Oil’s magazine, “Imperial Oil Review”:[Climate change] has absolutely nothing to do with pollution and air quality.
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but an essential ingredient of life on this planet. .
. . [T]he question of whether or not the trapping of “greenhouse” gases will resultin the planet’s getting warmer . . . has no connection whatsoever with our day-today weather.
....
There is absolutely no agreement among climatologists on whether or not the planetis getting warmer or, if it is, on whether the warming is the result of man-madefactors or natural variations in the climate. . . . I feel very safe in saying that theview that burning fossil fuels will result in global climate change remains an
unproved hypothesis.140
102.

Mobil (Exxon) paid for a series of “advertorials,” advertisements located in theeditorial section of The New York Times and meant to look like editorials rather than paid
advertisements. Many of those advertorials communicated doubt about the reality and severity of

Lee R. Raymond, Energy – Key to growth and a better environment for Asia-Pacific nations,WORLD
PETROLEUMCONGRESS(Oct.
13,1997),
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2840902/1997-Lee-Raymond-Speech-at-ChinaWorld-Petroleum.pdf.
139

Robert Peterson, A Cleaner Canada, IMPERIAL OIL REV., at 29 (1998)
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6555577-1998-Robert-PetersonA-Cleaner-CanadaImperial.html.
140

74

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

human-caused climate change, even as industry scientists contemporaneously reiterated thatclimate change was real, serious, and caused by human activity. The advertisements addressedvarious aspects of the public discussion of climate change and sought to undermine thejustifications for tackling GHG emissions as unsettled science. The 1997 advertorial on thefollowing page argued that economic analysis of emissions restrictions was faulty and inconclusive
and therefore provided a justification for delaying action on climate change.

75

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

Figure 7: 1997 Mobil Advertorial141

When Facts Don’t Square with the Theory, Throw Out the Facts, N.Y. TIMES (Aug. 14, 1997),
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/705550-mob-nyt-1997-aug-14whenfactsdontsquare.html.
141

76

Mobil ran the following advertorial in The New York Times in 1993:

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

103.

Figure 8: 1997 Mobil Advertorial
104.

The advertorial quotes Fred Singer, a physicist who tobacco companies funded topromote his claim that second-hand smoke did not cause cancer.

77

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

105.

The advertisement also presents Robert C. Balling as another neutral scientificexpert. Yet five years after Mobil ran this advertorial, Mr. Balling acknowledged that he hadreceived $408,000 in funding from the fossil fuel industry, including from ExxonMobil.142
106.

The advertorial misleadingly portrays the “Heidelberg Appeal” as evidence that

there was insufficient scientific data for action on climate change. In fact, the Heidelberg Appeal
did not discuss climate change or the validity of scientific reasoning or evidence showing thatclimate change is happening, is human-caused, and will cause severe environmental damage.143
107.

Many other Exxon and Mobil advertorials falsely or misleadingly characterized thestate of climate science research to the readership of The New York Times’s op-ed page. A sampleof misleading or outright untruthful statements in paid advertisements that resembled op-eds
includes the following:“We don’t know enough about the factors that affect global warming and the degree
to which—if any—that man-made emissions (namely, carbon dioxide) contributeto increases in Earth’s temperature.”144“[G]reenhouse-gas emissions, which have a warming effect, are offset by anothercombustion product—particulates—which leads to cooling.”145“Even after two decades of progress, climatologists are still uncertain how—oreven if—the buildup of man-made greenhouse gases is linked to global
warming.”146
Determination
18,.
Minn.
News
Council
http://www.mtn.org/~newscncl/complaints/hearings/det_118.html.
142

143

(Apr.

16,

1998),

Heidelberg Appeal, DESMOG, desmog.com/heidelberg-appeal/ (last visited Nov. 16, 2023).

Climate change: a prudent approach, N.Y. TIMES (Nov.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/705548-mob-nyt-1997-11-13climateprudentapproach.html.

13,

1997)

Less heat, more light on climate change, N.Y. TIMES
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/705544-mob-nyt-1996-jul-18lessheatmorelight.html.

(July

18,

1996)

Climate change: where we come out, N.Y. TIMES (Nov.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/705549-mob-nyt-1997-11-20ccwherewecomeout.html (emphasis in original).

20,

1997)

144

145

146

78

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024“[I]t is impossible for scientists to attribute the recent small surface temperature
increase to human causes.”147
108.

A quantitative analysis of Exxon’s climate communications between 1989 and2004 found that, while 83 percent of the company’s peer-reviewed papers and 80 percent of its
internal documents acknowledged the reality and human origins of climate change, 81 percent of
its advertorials communicated doubt about those conclusions.148 Based on this “statisticallysignificant” discrepancy between internal and external communications, the authors concluded that
“ExxonMobil misled the public.”149
109.

The Fossil Fuel Defendants’ public campaign of deception was accomplishedindividually, through API, and through various other trade associations and front groups. This
campaign was mounted in order to allow Fossil Fuel Defendants to continue wrongfully promoting
and marketing their fossil fuel products, despite their own knowledge and the growing national
and international scientific consensus about the hazards of doing so.
110.

One of the key organizations formed by the Fossil Fuel Defendants to coordinate

the fossil fuel industry’s response to the world’s growing awareness of climate change was theInternational Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (“IPIECA”). In 1988,
IPIECA formed a “Working Group on Global Climate Change” chaired by Duane LeVine,
Exxon’s manager for science and strategy development. The Working Group also included Brian
Flannery from Exxon, Leonard Bernstein from Mobil, Terry Yosie from API, and representatives

Unsettled
Science,N.Y.
TIMES,(Mar.
23,2000),
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/705605-xom-nyt-2000-3-23-unsettledscience.
147

Geoffrey Supran & Naomi Oreskes, Addendum to ‘Assessing ExxonMobil’s climate change
communications (1977–2014)’, 12 ENV’T RSCH. LETTERS 084019, at 8 (2020)
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f/pdf.
148

149

Id. at 15.
79

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

from BP, Shell, and Texaco (Chevron). In 1990, the Working Group sent a strategy memo createdby Mr. LeVine to IPIECA member companies. This memo explained that, to forestall a global
shift away from burning fossil fuels for energy, the industry should emphasize uncertainties inclimate science, call for further research, and promote industry-friendly policies that would leave
the fossil fuel business intact.150
111.

In 1991, the Information Council for the Environment (“ICE”), whose members

included Defendants, launched a national climate change science denial campaign with full-page
newspaper advertisements, radio commercials, a public relations tour schedule, “mailers,” andresearch tools to measure campaign success. The campaign’s top strategy was to “[r]eposition
global warming as theory (not fact).” Its target audiences included younger, lower-income women
who “are likely to be ‘green’ consumers, to believe the earth is warming, and to think the problem
is serious . . . These women are good targets for magazine advertisements.151
112.

The campaign planned to “use a spokesman from the scientific community” basedon consumer research that found “technical and expert sources have the highest credibility amonga broad range of members of the public.”152
113.

The following images are examples of ICE-funded print advertisements

challenging the validity of climate science and intended to obscure the scientific consensus onanthropogenic climate change.153

Christopher Bonneuil et al., Early warnings and emerging accountability: Total’s responses toglobal warming, 1971-2021, 71 GLOBAL ENV’T. CHANGE 102386, at 5 (2021)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378021001655.
150

Climate Deception Dossier, INFORMATION COUNCIL FOR THE ENV’T (May 15, 1991),
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/Climate-Deception-Dossier-5_ICE.pdf.
151

152

Id.

153

Id. at 47-49.
80

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

Figure 9: Information Council for the Environment Advertisements
114.

The GCC, on behalf of the Fossil Fuel Defendants and other fossil fuel companies,

also funded deceptive advertising campaigns and distributed misleading material to generate
public uncertainty around the climate debate, seeking to prevent U.S. adoption of a 1997
international agreement to limit and reduce GHG emissions known as the Kyoto Protocol andthereby inflate the market for fossil fuels, despite the leading role that the U.S. had played innegotiating the Protocol.154 The GCC’s position on climate change contradicted decades of its
members’ internal scientific reports by asserting that natural trends, not human combustion offossil fuels, were responsible for rising global temperatures:
The GCC believes that the preponderance of the evidence indicates that most, if notall, of the observed warming is part of a natural warming trend which began
approximately 400 years ago. If there is an anthropogenic component to thisRobert J. Brulle, Advocating inaction: a historical analysis of the Global Climate Coalition,
ENV’T POLITICS, at 2, 13-14 (2022) https://cssn.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/GCC-Paper.pdf(Mr. Brulle notes in particular the effectiveness of the GCC in opposing the Kyoto protocol: “In
one final compliment, the GCC’s effectiveness was acknowledged in a meeting with White House
staff on 21 June 2001. The talking points for that meeting noted that ‘POTUS rejected Kyoto, inpart, based on input from you.’”).
154

81

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

observed warming, the GCC believes that it must be very small and must be
superimposed on a much larger natural warming trend.155
115.

The GCC’s promotion of overt climate change skepticism also contravened its

internal assessment that such theories lacked scientific support. Despite an internal primer
acknowledging that various “contrarian theories” (i.e., climate change skepticism) “do not offer
convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission-induced climatechange,”156 the GCC excluded this section from the publicly released version of the
backgrounder,157 and instead funded and promoted some of those same contrarian theories.
Between 1989 and 1998, the GCC spent $13 million on advertisements as part of a campaign toobfuscate the facts and the science relating to climate change and undermine the public’s trust in
climate scientists.158 Ultimately, the GCC’s efforts “created an influential discourse of climate
skepticism in the U.S. that continues to be an influential political current.”159
116.

For example, in a 1994 report, the GCC stated that “observations have not yet

confirmed evidence of global warming that can be attributed to human activities,” and that “[t]heGlobal Climate Coalition: An Overview, GLOBAL CLIMATE COALITION, at 2 (1996)
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5453339-1996-GCC-Overview-and-Reports.
155

Gregory J. Dana, GLOBAL CLIMTE COALITION (GCC) – Primer on Climate Change Science–
Final
Draft,ASSOC.
OF
INT’L
AUTO.
MFRS.
(Jan.
18,
1996)
http://www.webcitation.org/6FyqHawb9 (providing a “Primer on Climate Change Science”
developed by the GCC).
156

See Gregory J. Dana, GLOBAL CLIMATE COALITION (GCC) – Science and Technology
Assessment Committee (STAC) Meeting – February 15, 1996 – Summary, ASSOC. OF INT’L AUTO.
MFRS., at 7 (Feb. 27, 1996) https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5631461-AIAM050835.html (“Most suggestions [at the STAC meeting] had been to drop the ‘contrarian’ part.
This idea was accepted and that portion of the paper will be dropped.”).
157

Wendy E. Franz, Science, skeptics and non-state actors in the greenhouse, BELFER CENTER FORSCIENCE&
INT’L
AFFAIRS,at
13(Sept.
1998)
https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/Science%20Skeptics%20and%20Non-State%20Actors%20in%20the%20Greenhouse%20-%20E-98-18.pdf.
158

Marten Boon, A Climate of Change? The Oil Industry and Decarbonization in Historical
Perspective, 93 BUS. HISTORY REV. 101, 110 (2019).
159

82

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

claim that serious impacts from climate change have occurred or will occur in the future simply
has not been proven,” so “there is no basis for the design of effective policy actions that would
eliminate the potential for climate change.”160 In 1995, the GCC published a booklet called“Climate Change: Your Passport to the Facts,” which stated, “While many warnings have reached
the popular press about the consequences of a potential man-made warming of the Earth’s
atmosphere during the next 100 years, there remains no scientific evidence that such a dangerous
warming will actually occur.”161
117.

In 1997, William O’Keefe, chairman of the GCC and executive vice president ofAPI, made the following false statement in a Washington Post op-ed: “Climate scientists don’t saythat burning oil, gas, and coal is steadily warming the earth.”162 This statement contradicted theestablished scientific consensus as well as Defendants’ own knowledge. Yet Defendants did
nothing to correct the public record, and instead continued to fund the GCC’s anti-scientificclimate skepticism.
118.

In addition to publicly spreading false and misleading information about the climate

science consensus, the GCC also sought to undermine credible climate science from within the
IPCC. After becoming a reviewer of IPCC’s Second Assessment Report in 1996, the GCC used
its position to accuse the lead author of a key chapter in the Report of modifying the chapter’s
conclusions. The GCC claimed that the author, climatologist Ben Santer, had engaged in
Issues and Options: Potential Global Climate Change, GLOBAL CLIMATE COALITION, at
preface, 43 (Apr. 1994) https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5628164-Potential-GlobalClimate-Change-Issues-and-Options.
160

Climate Change: Your Passport to the Facts, GLOBAL CLIMATE COALITION (1995)
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5628109-Climate-Change-Your-Passport-to-theFacts.
161

William F. O’Keefe, A Climate Policy, WASH. POST (July 5, 1997),
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1997/07/05/a-climate-policy/6a11899a-c0204d59-a185-b0e7eebf19cc/.
162

83

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024“scientific cleansing” that “understate[d] uncertainties about climate change causes and effects . .
. to increase the apparent scientific support for attribution of changes to climate to humanactivities.”163 The GCC also arranged to spread the accusation among legislators, reporters, andscientists, and similar accusations were published in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.164 This effort“was widely perceived to be an attempt on the part of the GCC to undermine the credibility of the
IPCC.”165
119.

In the late 1990s, Defendants shifted away from openly denying anthropogenic

warming and toward peddling a subtler form of climate change skepticism. Defendants became
alarmed by the enormous legal judgments the tobacco industry then faced as a result of decades
spent publicly denying the health risks of smoking cigarettes; a Shell employee explained that thecompany “didn’t want to fall into the same trap as the tobacco companies who have becometrapped in all their lies.”166 Defendants began to shift their communications strategy, claiming they
had accepted climate science all along.167 Several large fossil fuel companies, including BP and
Shell, left the GCC (although all the Fossil Fuel Defendants remained members of API).168 At thispoint in time, Defendants publicly claimed to accept the reality of anthropogenic climate change,
while insisting that the costs of climate action were unacceptably high in light of the yet-unresolved
uncertainties in climate science—especially around the severity and timeframe of future climate
163

Franz, supra note 158, at 14.

NAOMI ORESKES & ERIK M. CONWAY, MERCHANTS OF DOUBT: HOW A HANDFUL OF SCIENTISTSOBSCURED THE TRUTH ON ISSUES FROM TOBACCO SMOKE TO GLOBAL WARMING, 207 (Bloomsbury
Press, 1st ed. 2011); see also S. Fred Singer, Climate Change and Consensus, 271 SCIENCE 581(Feb. 2, 1996); Frederick Seitz, A Major Deception on Global Warming, THE WALL STREET J.
(June 12, 1996, 12:01 AM ET) https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB834512411338954000.
164

165

Franz, supra note 158, at 15.

166

NATHANIEL RICH, LOSING EARTH: A RECENT HISTORY, 186 (MCD 1st ed., 2020).

167

Bonneuil, supra note 150, at 6.

168

Id.
84

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

impacts. Reflecting this new strategy, API Executive Vice President (and GCC chairman) William
O’Keefe announced in November 1998 that “[w]e are committed to being part of the solution to
the climate risk and to active participation in the debate to forge a clear, defensible policy.” “[T]hedebate is not about action or inaction,” Mr. O’Keefe wrote, “but what set of actions is consistent
with our state of knowledge and economic well-being.”169 Rather than publicly deny the need toaddress climate change, Defendants’ new communications strategy sought to forestall policy
actions that might decrease consumption of fossil fuel products.
120.

Despite their public about-face, Defendants surreptitiously continued to organize

and fund programs designed to deceive the public about the weight and veracity of the climate
science consensus. In 1998, API convened a Global Climate Science Communications Team(“GCSCT”) whose members included Exxon’s senior environmental lobbyist, an API public
relations representative, and a federal relations representative from Chevron. There were noclimate scientists on the GCSCT. Steve Milloy and his organization, The Advancement of Sound
Science Coalition (“TASSC”), were founding members of the GCSCT. TASSC was anorganization created by the tobacco industry to give the impression of a “grassroots” movement,
which aimed to sow uncertainty by discrediting the scientific link between exposure to secondhand cigarette smoke and increased rates of cancer and heart disease. Philip Morris had launched
TASSC on the advice of its public relations firm, which advised Philip Morris that the tobaccocompany itself would not be a credible voice on the issue of smoking and public health. TASSC
also became a front group for the fossil fuel industry, using the same tactics it had honed while
operating on behalf of tobacco companies to spread doubt about climate science.

API: U.S. oil industry recognizes climate change risk, OIL & GAS J. (Nov. 2, 1998)
https://www.ogj.com/home/article/17225896/api-us-oil-industry-recognizes-climate-change-risk.
169

85

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

121.

The GCSCT continued Defendants’ efforts to deceive the public about the dangers

of fossil fuel use by launching a campaign in 1998 to convince the public that the scientific basis
for climate change was in doubt. The GCSCT “developed an action plan to inform the American
public that science does not support the precipitous actions Kyoto would dictate [i.e., reducing use
of fossil fuels].” The multi-million-dollar, multi-year “Global Climate Science Communications
Action Plan” sought, among other things, to do the following: (a) “[d]evelop and implement anational media relations program to inform the media about uncertainties in climate science”; (b)“to generate national, regional and local media coverage on the scientific uncertainties”; (c)“[d]evelop a global climate science information kit for media including peer-reviewed papers that
undercut the ‘conventional wisdom’ on climate science”; (d) “[p]roduce . . . a steady stream of oped columns”; and (e) “[d]evelop and implement a direct outreach program to inform and educate
members of Congress, state officials, . . . and school teachers/students about uncertainties inclimate science” to “begin to erect a barrier against further efforts to impose Kyoto [Protocol]-likemeasures in the future.”170
122.

Exxon, Chevron, and API directed and contributed to the development of the plan,

which plainly set forth the criteria by which the contributors would know when their efforts to
manufacture doubt had been successful. “Victory,” they wrote, “will be achieved when . . . average
citizens ‘understand’ (recognize) uncertainties in climate science” and “recognition of
uncertainties becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom.’”171 In other words, the plan was part ofJoe Walker, Draft Global Climate Science Communications Plan, at 4-9 (Apr. 3, 1998)
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/784572/api-global-climate-sciencecommunications-plan.pdf.
170

171

Id. at 4.
86

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

Defendants’ goal to use disinformation to plant doubt about the reality of climate change in aneffort to maintain consumer demand for their fossil fuel products and their large profits.
123.

Soon after, API distributed a memo to its members illuminating API’s and theFossil Fuel Defendants’ concern over the potential regulation of their fossil fuel products: “Climate
is at the center of the industry’s business interests. Policies limiting carbon emissions reduce
petroleum product use. That is why it is API’s highest priority issue and defined as ‘strategic.’”172
The API memo stressed many of the strategies that Defendants collectively utilized to combat theperception of fossil fuel products as hazardous. These strategies included the following:a.

Influencing the tenor of the climate change “debate” as a means to establishthat greenhouse gas reduction policies like the Kyoto Protocol were not necessary to responsibly
address climate change;b.

Maintaining strong working relationships between government regulatorsand communications-oriented organizations like the GCC, the Heartland Institute, and othergroups carrying Defendants’ message minimizing the hazards of the unabated use of fossil fuelproducts and opposing regulation thereof; andc.

Presenting Defendants’ positions on climate change in domestic andinternational forums, including by presenting an “alternative” to the IPCC.
124.

In furtherance of the strategies described in these memoranda, Defendants mademisleading statements about climate change, the relationship between climate change and fossil
fuel products, and the urgency of the problem. Defendants made these statements in public fora
and in advertisements published in newspapers and other media with substantial circulation in
Allegations of Political Interference with Government Climate Change Science: Hearing Before
the Comm. on Oversight and Government Reform, 110th Cong. 324 (Mar. 19, 2007) (statement ofPhilip A. Cooney), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg37415/html/CHRG110hhrg37415.htm).
172

87

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

Chicago, including national publications such as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal,
and The Washington Post.
125.

Another key strategy in Defendants’ efforts to discredit the scientific consensus on

climate change as well as the IPCC itself was to fund scientists who held fringe opinions. Those
scientists obtained part or all of their research budget from the Fossil Fuel Defendants, either
directly or through Fossil Fuel Defendant-funded organizations like API,173 but frequently failed
to disclose their funding sources.174 Defendants intended for the research of scientists they funded
to be distributed to and relied on by consumers when buying Fossil Fuel Defendants’ products,
including by consumers in Chicago.
126.

One such scientist, Dr. Wei-Hock (“Willie”) Soon, received over $1.2 million fromthe fossil fuel industry, including Exxon and API. Dr. Soon did not disclose these funding sources
on at least eleven published papers. “Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders,
described many of his scientific papers as ‘deliverables’ that he completed in exchange for theirmoney.”175 Dr. Soon also took the highly unusual approach of contractually agreeing to allow
donors to review his research before publication, and his housing institution, the Smithsonian
Institute, agreed not to disclose the funding arrangement without prior permission from his fossil

See e.g., Willie Soon & Sallie Baliunas, Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past
1000
Years,
23
CLIMATE
RSCH.
89,
105
(2003),
https://www.intres.com/articles/cr2003/23/c023p089.pdf.
173

William Allman, Climate Change Researcher Received Funds From Fossil Fuel Industry,
SMITHSONIAN
MAG.
(Feb.
26,
2015),
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonianmag/smithsonian-climate-change-scientist180954380/.
174

Justin Gillis & John Schwarz, Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher,
THE N.Y. TIMES (Feb. 21, 2015), https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cashfor-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html.
175

88

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

fuel donors.176 This Defendant-funded research includes articles in scientific journals accusing the
IPCC of overstating the negative environmental effects of carbon dioxide emissions and arguingthat the sun is responsible for recent climate trends.
127.

Creating a false perception of disagreement in the scientific community (despite theconsensus previously acknowledged within the industry) has evidently disrupted vital channels ofcommunication between scientists and the public. A 2007 Yale University-Gallup poll found thatwhile 71 percent of Americans personally believed global warming was happening, only 48
percent believed that there was a consensus among the scientific community, and 40 percent
believed, falsely, that there was substantial disagreement among scientists over whether global
warming was occurring.177 Eight years later, a 2015 Yale-George Mason University poll foundthat “[o]nly about one in ten Americans understands that nearly all climate scientists (over 90[percent]) are convinced that human-caused global warming is happening, and just half . . . believea majority do.”178 Further, it found that 33 percent of Americans believe that climate change ismostly due to natural changes in the environment, in stark contrast to the 97 percent of peerreviewed climate science papers that acknowledge that global warming is happening and at least
partly human-caused.179 The lack of progress, and indeed the regression, in the public’s
understanding of climate science over this period—during which Defendants professed to accept

Kathy Mulvey et al., The Climate Deception Dossiers: Internal Fossil Fuel Industry Memos
Reveal Decades of Disinformation, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS, at 6-9 (July 2015),
https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf.
176

American Opinions on Global Warming: A Yale/Gallup/Clearvision Poll, YALE PROGRAM ON
CLIMATECHANGE
COMMC’N(July
31,2007),
https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/american-opinions-on-global-warming/.
177

Anthony Leiserowitz et al., Climate Change in the American Mind, YALE PROGRAM ON
CLIMATE CHANGE COMMC’N (Oct. 2015), https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2015/11/Climate-Change-American-Mind-October-20151.pdf.
178

179

Id.
89

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

the conclusions of mainstream climate science—demonstrates the success of Defendants’
deception campaign in thwarting the dissemination of accurate scientific information to the publicregarding the effects of the use of fossil fuels.
128.

Defendants have funded dozens of think tanks and front groups promoting climatechange denial. These organizations include the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Heartland
Institute, Frontiers of Freedom, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, and the Heritage
Foundation. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, from 1998 to 2017, Exxon spentover $36 million funding numerous organizations misrepresenting the scientific consensus thatfossil fuel products were causing climate change, sea level rise, and injuries to Chicago, among
other communities.180 Several Defendants have been linked to other groups that undermine thescientific basis linking fossil fuel products to climate change and sea level rise, including the
Frontiers of Freedom Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute.
129.

Phillip Cooney, an attorney at API from 1996 to 2001, testified at a 2007

Congressional hearing that it was “typical” for API to fund think tanks and advocacy groups thatminimized fossil fuels’ role in climate change.181
130.

In 2007, Exxon publicly reported: “In 2008, we will discontinue contributions toseveral public policy research groups whose position on climate change could divert attention fromthe important discussion on how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in

ExxonMobil Foundation & Corporate Giving to Climate Change Denier & Obstructionist
Organizations,UNION
OF
CONCERNEDSCIENTISTS(2017),
https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2019/ExxonMobil-Worldwide-Giving-19982017.pdf.
180

Allegations of Political Interference with Government Climate Change Science: Hearing Before
the Comm. on Oversight and Government Reform, 110th Cong. 324 (Mar. 19, 2007) (statement ofPhilip A. Cooney), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg37415/html/CHRG110hhrg37415.htm).
181

90

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

an environmentally responsible manner.”182 While Exxon acknowledged that funding climate
denial was affecting the public debate on climate change, Exxon did not keep its promise to stop.
Exxon continued to support groups denying climate science in 2008 and beyond.
131.

Beginning in 2015, journalists began to uncover mounting evidence of Defendants’campaign of deception. In September 2015, journalists at Inside Climate News reported that, as far
back as the 1970s, Exxon had sophisticated knowledge of the causes and consequences of climatechange and of the role its products played in contributing to climate change.183
132.

Between October and December 2015, several journalists at the Energy andEnvironment Reporting Project at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism and theLos Angeles Times also exposed the fact that, as far back as the 1970s, Exxon and other membersof the fossil fuel industry had superior knowledge of the causes and consequences of climatechange and the role their products played in causing it.184
133.

In November 2017, the Center for International Environmental Law issued a report

revealing that Defendants, including API, had superior knowledge of the causes and consequencesof climate change and the role fossil fuel products played in causing it as early as the 1970s.185

2007
Corporate
Citizenship
Report,
EXXONMOBIL,
at
41(2007),
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2799777-ExxonMobil-2007-Corporate-CitizenshipReport.html.
182

Neela Banerjee et al., Exxon: The Road Not Taken, INSIDE CLIMATE NEWS,https://insideclimatenews.org/project/exxon-the-road-not-taken/ (last visited Dec. 6, 2023).
183

The Los Angeles Times published a series of three articles between October and December
2015. See Jennings et al., supra note 52; Jerving et al., supra note 115; Lieberman & Rust, supranote 52.
184

Carol Muffett & Steven Feit, Smoke and Fumes: The Legal and Evidentiary Basis for Holding
Big Oil Accountable for the Climate Crisis, CENTER FOR INT’L ENV’T L. (2017),
https://www.ciel.org/reports/smoke-and-fumes.
185

91

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

134.

In September 2023, the Wall Street Journal reported that Exxon worked “behindclosed doors” to sow public doubt about climate change. The article was based on “documents
reviewed by the Journal, which haven’t been previously reported.”186
D.

Defendants Could Have Chosen to Facilitate, and Be Part of, a Lower-Carbon
Future, but Instead Chose Corporate Profits and Continued Deception.

135.

Defendants could have chosen a different path. They could have refrained fromundermining the global effort to mitigate the impacts of GHG emissions, or even contributed to it
by, for example, delineating practical technical strategies, policy goals, and regulatory structuresthat would have allowed them to continue their business ventures while reducing GHG emissions
and supporting a transition to a lower-carbon future. Instead, Defendants devoted significant
efforts to deceiving consumers, including in Chicago, and the public about the existential hazardsof burning fossil fuels—all with the purpose and effect of perpetuating and inflating usage of fossil
fuels and delaying the advent of alternative energy sources not based on fossil fuels.
136.

As a result of Defendants’ tortious, deceptive, and misleading conduct, consumersof Defendants’ fossil fuel products and the public in Chicago as elsewhere, have been deliberately
and unnecessarily deceived about the following: the role of fossil fuel products in causing global
warming, sea level rise, disruptions to the hydrologic cycle, more extreme precipitation, heatwaves, droughts, and other consequences of the climate crisis; the acceleration of global warming
since the mid-twentieth century; and the fact that continued increases in fossil fuel consumption
create increasingly severe environmental threats and increasingly significant economic costs for
Chicago and other communities. Consumers and the public in Chicago and elsewhere have also
been deceived about the depth and breadth of the state of the scientific evidence on anthropogenic
Christopher M. Matthews & Collin Eaton, Inside Exxon’s Strategy to Downplay Climate
Change,THE WALL STREET J.
(Sept.
14,2023,
5:30 AMET),
https://www.wsj.com/business/energy-oil/exxon-climate-change-documents-e2e9e6af.
186

92

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

climate change, and, in particular, about the strength of the scientific consensus regarding the roleof fossil fuels in causing both climate change and a wide range of potentially destructive impacts.
137.

Defendants’ deception also significantly delayed the transition to alternative energy

sources that could have prevented some of the worst impacts of climate change in Chicago andelsewhere. By sowing doubt about the future consequences of unrestricted fossil fuel consumption,
Defendants’ deception campaign successfully forestalled development and dissemination ofalternative fuels, as well as legislation supporting a broad-based transition to alternative energy
sources. This delay led to emission of huge amounts of avoidable greenhouse gases, thereby
ensuring that the damage caused by climate change will be substantially more severe than if
Defendants had acted in a manner commensurate with their internal knowledge of climate risks.
E.

Defendants’ Internal Actions Demonstrate Their Awareness of the Impacts of
Climate Change and Their Intent to Continue to Profit from the Unabated Useof Fossil Fuel Products.

138.

In contrast to their public-facing efforts challenging the validity of the scientificconsensus about anthropogenic climate change, the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ acts and omissions
since the 1970s—including taking expensive actions to protect their own investments from theimpacts of climate change—have evinced their clear understanding of the realities of climatechange and its likely consequences. These actions have included making multi-billion-dollar
infrastructure investments for their own operations, including, among others, the following: raising
offshore oil platforms to protect against sea level rise; reinforcing offshore oil platforms towithstand increased wave strength and storm severity; and developing technology andinfrastructure to extract, store, and transport fossil fuels in a warming Arctic environment.187

187

Lieberman & Rust, supra note 52.
93

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

139.

For example, oil and gas reserves in the Arctic that were not previously reachable

due to sea ice are becoming increasingly reachable as sea ice thins and melts due to climatechange.188 In 1973, Exxon obtained a patent for a cargo vessel, such as a tank ship, capable ofbreaking through sea ice for use in Arctic operations189 and for an oil tanker190 designed for Arctic
operations.
140.

In 1974, Texaco (Chevron) obtained a patent for a mobile Arctic drilling platform

designed to withstand significant interference from lateral ice masses.191
141.

Shell obtained a patent for an Arctic offshore platform adapted for conducting

operations in the Beaufort Sea in 1984.192
142.

In 1989, Norske Shell, Royal Dutch Shell’s Norwegian subsidiary, altered designs

for a natural gas platform planned for construction in the North Sea to account for anticipated sea
level rise. Those design changes added substantial costs to the project.193
a.

In 1979, Norske Shell was approved by Norwegian oil and gas regulators tooperate a portion of the Troll oil and gas field.

James Henderson & Julia Loe, The Prospects and Challenges for Arctic Oil Development,
OXFORD
INST.
FOR
ENERGYSTUDIES,
at
1
(Nov.
2014)
https://www.oxfordenergy.org/publications/the-prospects-and-challenges-for-arctic-oildevelopment/.
188

Icebreaking Cargo Vessel, U.S. Patent No. 3,727,571 (filed July 7, 1971) (issued Apr. 17, 1973),
https://www.google.com/patents/US3727571.
189

Tanker Vessel, U.S. Patent No. 3,745,960 (filed May 6, 1971) (issued July 17, 1973),
https://www.google.com/patents/US3745960.
190

Mobile, Arctic Drilling and Production Platform, U.S. Patent No. 3,793,840 (filed Oct. 18,
1971) (issued Feb. 26, 1974), https://www.google.com/patents/US3793840.
191

Arctic offshore platform, U.S. Patent No. 4,427,320 (filed Feb. 19, 1982) (issued Jan. 24, 1984),
https://www.google.com/patents/US4427320.
192

Greenhouse Effect: Shell Anticipates A Sea Change, THE N.Y. TIMES (Dec. 20, 1989),
https://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/20/business/greenhouse-effect-shell-anticipates-a-seachange.html; Lieberman & Rust, supra note 52.
193

94

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

b.

In 1986, the Norwegian parliament granted Norske Shell authority tocomplete the first development phase of the Troll field gas deposits, and Norske Shell began
designing the “Troll A” gas platform, with the intent to begin operation of the platform inapproximately 1995. Based on the very large size of the gas deposits in the Troll field, the Troll A
platform was projected to operate for approximately 70 years.
c.

The platform was originally designed to stand approximately 100 feet above

sea level—the height necessary to stay above the waves in a once-in-a-century-strength storm.
d.

In 1989, Shell engineers revised their plans to increase the above-waterheight of the platform by three to six feet in order to account for higher anticipated average sea
levels and increased storm intensities due to global warming over the platform’s 70-year
operational life.194
e.

Shell projected that the additional three to six feet of above-water

construction would increase the cost of the Troll A platform by tens of millions of dollars.
F.

Defendants’ Actions Have Exacerbated the Costs of Adapting to and
Mitigating the Adverse Impacts of the Climate Crisis.

143.

As GHG pollution accumulates in the atmosphere, some of which (namely CO2)

does not dissipate for potentially thousands of years, climate changes and consequent adverse
environmental changes compound, and their frequencies and magnitudes increase. As those
adverse environmental changes compound, and their frequencies and magnitudes increase, so too
do the physical, environmental, economic, and social injuries resulting therefrom.
144.

Delayed societal development and adoption of alternative energy sources andrelated efforts to curb anthropogenic GHG emissions have therefore increased environmental

194

Id.
95

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

harms and increased the magnitude and cost to address harms, including to Chicago, that havealready occurred or are locked in as a result of historical emissions.
145.

Therefore, Defendants’ campaign to obscure the science of climate change toprotect and expand the use of fossil fuels greatly increased and continues to increase the injuries
suffered by Chicago and its residents. Had concerted action to reduce GHG emissions begun
earlier, the subsequent impacts of climate change could have been avoided or mitigated.
146.

Defendants have been aware for decades that clean energy presents a feasible

alternative to fossil fuels. In 1980, Exxon forecasted that non-fossil fuel energy sources, if pursued,
could penetrate half of a competitive energy market in approximately 50 years. 195 This internal
estimate was based on extensive modeling within the academic community, including research
conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s David Rose, which concluded that atransition to non-fossil energy could be achieved in around 50 years. Exxon circulated an internal
memo approving of Mr. Rose’s conclusions, stating they were “based on reasonableassumptions.”196 But instead of pursuing a clean energy transition or warning the public about thedangers of burning fossil fuels, Defendants chose to deceive consumers, including those in
Chicago, to preserve Fossil Fuel Defendants’ profits and assets. As a result, much time has been
lost in which consumers could have done much to mitigate the climate crisis in Chicago.
147.

The costs of inaction on anthropogenic climate change and its adverse

environmental effects were not lost on Defendants. In a 1997 speech by John Browne, Group Chief
Henry Shaw, Memorandum to T.K. Kett re Exxon Research and Engineering Company’s
Technological Forecast: CO2 Greenhouse Effect, CLIMATEFILES, at 5 (Dec. 18, 1980),
https://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1980-exxon-memo-on-the-co2-greenhouse-effect-andcurrent-programs-studying-the-issue/.
195

M.B. Glaser, Memorandum to Exxon re CO2 “Greenhouse” Effect, EXXON RSCH. AND
ENGINEERING CO., at 17-18 (Apr. 1, 1982), https://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1982memo-to-exxon-management-about-co2-greenhouse-effect/.
196

96

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

Executive for BP America, at Stanford University, Mr. Browne described Defendants’ and theentire fossil fuel industry’s responsibility and opportunity to reduce the use of fossil fuel products,
reduce global CO2 emissions, and mitigate the harms associated with the use and consumption ofsuch products:[W]e need to go beyond analysis and to take action. It is a moment for change andfor a rethinking of corporate responsibility.
....
[T]here is now an effective consensus among the world’s leading scientists andserious and well informed people outside the scientific community that there is adiscernible human influence on the climate, and a link between the concentrationof carbon dioxide and the increase in temperature.
....
[The fossil fuel industry] ha[s] a responsibility to act, and I hope that through ouractions we can contribute to the much wider process which is desirable andnecessary.
BP accepts that responsibility and we’re therefore taking some specific steps.
To control our own emissions.
To fund continuing scientific research.
To take initiatives for joint implementation.
To develop alternative fuels for the long term.
And to contribute to the public policy debate in search of the wider global answers
to the problem.197
148.

Despite Defendants’ knowledge of the foreseeable, measurable, and significant

harms associated with the unrestrained consumption and use of fossil fuel products, in Chicago as
elsewhere, and despite Defendants’ knowledge of technologies and practices that could haveJohn Browne, BP Climate Change Speech to Stanford, EXXON RSCH. AND ENGINEERING CO.
(May 19, 1997), http://www.climatefiles.com/bp/bp-climate-change-speech-to-stanford.
197

97

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

helped to reduce the foreseeable dangers associated with their fossil fuel products, Defendants
continued to promote heavy fossil fuel use, and mounted a campaign to obscure the connection
between fossil fuel products and the climate crisis, thus dramatically adding to the costs ofabatement. This campaign was intended to, and did, reach and influence Chicago consumers, alongwith consumers elsewhere.
149.

For example, in 2006, Exxon wrote a letter to the Royal Society recognizing that“the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere poses risks that may provesignificant for society and ecosystems.” “Yet behind closed doors, Exxon took a very different
tack: Its executives strategized over how to diminish concerns about warming temperatures, andthey sought to muddle scientific findings that might hurt its oil-and-gas business.”198
150.

At all relevant times, Defendants were deeply familiar with opportunities to reduce

the use of fossil fuel products and associated GHG emissions, mitigate the harms associated withthe use and consumption of these products, and promote development of alternative, clean energy
sources. Examples of that recognition date back to the 1960s, and include, but are not limited to,the following:a.

In 1980, Imperial Oil (Exxon) wrote in its “Review of Environmental

Protection Activities for 1978–79”: “There is no doubt that increases in fossil fuel usage anddecreases in forest cover are aggravating the potential problem of increased CO2 in the atmosphere.
Technology exists to remove CO2 from stack gases but removal of only 50 percent of the CO2
would double the cost of power generation.”199

198

Matthews & Eaton, supra note 186.

Review of Environmental Protection Activities for 1978–1979, IMPERIAL OIL LTD., at 2 (Aug.
6, 1980), https://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1980-imperial-oil-review-of-environmentalprotection-activities-for-1978-1979/.
199

98

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

b.

A 1987 company briefing produced by Shell on “Synthetic Fuels andRenewable Energy” emphasized the importance of immediate research and development ofalternative fuel sources, noting that “the task of replacing oil resources is likely to become
increasingly difficult and expensive and there will be a growing need to develop clean, convenient
alternatives. . . . New energy sources take decades to make a major global contribution. Sustainedcommitment is therefore needed during the remainder of this century to ensure that newtechnologies and those currently at a relatively early stage of development are available to meetenergy needs in the next century.”200c.

A 1989 article in a publication from Exxon Corporate Research forcompany use only stated:
CO2 emissions contribute about half the forcing leading to a potential enhancementof the Greenhouse Effect. Since energy generation from fossil fuels dominatesmodern CO2 emissions, strategies to limit CO2 growth focus near term on energy
efficiency and long term on developing alternative energy sources. Practiced at alevel to significantly reduce the growth of greenhouse gases, these actions would
have substantial impact on society and our industry—near-term from reduced
demand for current products, long term from transition to entirely new energy
systems.201
151.

Despite these repeated recognitions of opportunities to reduce emissions andmitigate corresponding harms from climate change, Defendants continued to sow doubt anddisinformation in the minds of the public, including to Chicago residents, regarding the causes andeffects of climate change, and methods of reducing emissions. Examples of those efforts include,
but are not limited to, the following:

Synthetic Fuels and Renewable Energy, SHELL BRIEFING SERVICE (1987)
https://www.climatefiles.com/shell/1987-shell-synthetic-fuels-renewable-energy-briefing/.
200

Brian Flannery, Greenhouse Science, Connections: Corporate Research, EXXON RSCH. AND
ENGINEERING CO. (1989), https://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1989-exxon-mobil-articletechnologys-place-marketing-mix/.
201

99

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

a.

In 1996, more than 30 years after API’s president told petroleum industry

leaders that carbon emissions from fossil fuels could “cause marked changes in climate” by theyear 2000 if not abated,202 API published the book Reinventing Energy: Making the Right Choices
to refute this very conclusion. Contradicting the scientific consensus of which its members had
been aware for decades, the book claims: “Currently, no conclusive—or even strongly
suggestive—scientific evidence exists that human activities are significantly affecting sea levels,
rainfall, surface temperatures, or the intensity and frequency of storms.”203 The book alsosuggested that even if some warming does occur, such warming “would present few if any
problems” because, for example, farmers could be “smart enough to change their crop plans” andlow-lying areas would “likely adapt” to sea level rise.204b.

In the publication, API also contended that “[t]he state of the environment

does not justify the call for the radical lifestyle changes Americans would have to make tosubstantially reduce the use of oil and other fossil fuels” and that the “benefits of alternatives aren’t
worth the cost of forcing their use.” “Some jobs definitely will be created in making, distributing
and selling alternatives. But they will come at the expense of lost jobs in the traditional automobile
and petroleum industries,” the authors continued. “[A]lternatives will likely be more expensive
than conventional fuel/vehicle technology. Consumers, obviously, will bear these increased

Frank Ikard, Meeting the Challenges of 1966, in Proceedings of the American Petroleum
Institute, at 13 (1965), https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5348130-1965-APIProceedings.
202

Reinventing Energy: Making the Right Choices, AM. PETROLEUM INST., at 79 (1996),
https://www.climatefiles.com/trade-group/american-petroleum-institute/1996-reinventingenergy/ (emphasis in original).
203

204

Id. at 85-87.
100

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

expenses, which means they will have less to spend on other products. This in turn will . . . costjobs.”205c.

API published this book to ensure its members could continue to produce

and sell fossil fuels in massive quantities that it knew would devastate the planet. The book’s final
section reveals this purpose. API concluded: “[S]evere reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by
the United States, or even all developed countries, would impose large costs on those countries but
yield little in the way of benefits—even under drastic climate change scenarios.”206
152.

The Fossil Fuel Defendants could have made major inroads towards mitigating theharms they caused, and in particular, the City’s injuries, by developing and employing
technologies to capture and sequester GHG emissions associated with conventional use of theirfossil fuel products. The Fossil Fuel Defendants had knowledge of these technologies dating backat least to the 1960s, and, had indeed, internally researched many such technologies.
153.

Even if the Fossil Fuel Defendants did not adopt technological or energy source

alternatives that would have reduced the use of fossil fuel products, reduced global GHG pollution,
and/or mitigated the harms associated with the use and consumption of such products, the Fossil
Fuel Defendants could have taken other practical, cost-effective steps to mitigate the harms causedby their fossil fuel products. Those alternatives could have included, among other measures, thefollowing:a.

Refraining from affirmative efforts, whether directly, through coalitions, or

through front groups, to distort public perception and cause many consumers and businesses tothink the relevant science is far less certain than it actually is;205

Id. at 59, 68, 69.

206

Id. at 89.
101

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024b.

Acknowledging the validity of scientific evidence on anthropogenic climatechange and the damages it will cause people, communities (including the City), and theenvironment, thereby contributing to an earlier and quicker transition to cleaner energy sourcesthat could help minimize catastrophic climatic consequences;c.

Forthrightly communicating with consumers and the general public about

the global warming hazards of fossil fuel products that were known to Defendants, which would
have enabled those groups to make informed decisions about whether to curb the use of theseproducts—including whether and to what extent to invest in alternative clean energy sources
instead of in fossil fuels;d.

Sharing their internal scientific research with consumers, lawmakers, andthe public, including with Chicago and its residents, as well as with other scientists and businessleaders, to increase public understanding of the scientific underpinnings of climate change and its
relation to fossil fuel products; ande.

Prioritizing development of alternative sources of energy through sustained

investment and research on renewable energy sources to replace dependence on hazardous fossil
fuel products.
154.

Despite their knowledge of the foreseeable harms associated with the consumptionof fossil fuel products, and despite the existence of, and the fossil fuel industry’s knowledge of,opportunities to reduce the foreseeable dangers associated with those products, Defendants
wrongfully promoted and concealed the hazards of using fossil fuel products, delaying meaningful
development of alternative energy sources and exacerbating the costs of adapting to and mitigating
the adverse impacts of the climate crisis, including the climate crisis in Chicago.

102

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

G.

Defendants Continue to Deceive Chicago Consumers Through Misleading
Advertisements That Portray Defendants as Climate-Friendly Energy
Companies and Obscure Their Role in Causing Climate Change.

155.

Defendants’ deceptive conduct continues to the present day, albeit through updated

messaging. Now, rather than engaging solely in outright denials of the existence of climate change,
Defendants deflect attention from their role in causing climate change by falsely portraying fossil
fuel products as environmentally friendly, climate-friendly, or otherwise less environmentally
damaging than those products really are.
156.

Defendants have continued to mislead the public about the impact of fossil fuelproducts on climate change through “greenwashing.” Through recent advertising campaigns andpublic statements in Chicago and Illinois and/or intended to reach Chicago and Illinois, including
but not limited to online advertisements and social media posts, Defendants falsely andmisleadingly portray these products as “green,” “clean,” “cleaner,” and/or “environmentallyfriendly,” and the Fossil Fuel Defendants portray themselves as climate-friendly energy companies
that are deeply engaged in finding solutions to climate change. By advertising fossil fuel products
and their businesses as environmentally friendly, and with words, phrases, colors, and imagery
that evoke positive environmental attributes, Defendants seek to convince consumers that theirindustry is beneficial to the environment. Reasonable consumers—i.e., a significant portion of thegeneral consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably under the circumstances—
are likely to be misled by Defendants’ advertisements into believing that their products do notcontribute to substantial injury to the environment. In reality, Fossil Fuel Defendants continue toprimarily invest in, develop, promote, and profit from fossil fuel products and heavily market those
products to consumers, including to consumers in Chicago, with full knowledge that those products
will continue to exacerbate climate change harms.

103

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

157.

Defendants’ greenwashing exploits Chicago and Illinois consumers’ concerns

about climate change and their desire to purchase “green” products and spend their consumer
dollars on products and businesses that are taking substantial and effective measures to combat
climate change. By deceptively portraying themselves and their products as part of the climate
solution, rather than as the problem, Defendants’ advertisements induce consumers to purchasefossil fuel products and develop brand affinity under the misimpression that purchasing and using
fossil fuel products supports genuine, substantial, and effective measures to mitigate climatechange, rather than contributing to climate change. Defendants’ false advertisements are thus
likely to mislead Chicago and Illinois consumers.
158.

At all times relevant to this complaint, Defendants have attempted to deceive

consumers by promoting certain of the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ fossil fuel products asenvironmentally beneficial, when in fact Defendants knew that those products would continue tocontribute to climate change, and thus imperil the environment, if used as intended. These
products, which Defendants tout, in fact result in the increase of GHG emissions, despite
Defendants’ knowledge that, when used as designed and intended, these products lead to climatechange.
159.

Defendants’ marketing of fossil fuel products as environmentally beneficial follows

in the footsteps of the tobacco industry’s advertising campaigns to de-emphasize, and confuse thepublic, including in Chicago, about the deadly effects of smoking cigarettes. Just as tobaccocompanies promoted “low-tar” and “light” cigarettes, inducing consumers to think of them as
healthy alternatives to quitting smoking, while knowing that smoking “healthy” cigarettes was still
harmful to human health, so too do Defendants peddle “low-carbon” and “emissions-reducing”
fossil fuel products to persuade consumers that those products are climate-friendly alternatives to104

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

traditional fossil fuels. In reality, the fossil fuel products they describe as “low-carbon,” “clean”
and/or “cleaner,” “green,” and “emissions-reducing” in fact contribute to climate change and areharmful to the health of the planet and its people.
160.

Below are representative examples of Defendants’ advertisements to Chicago andIllinois consumers that misleadingly portray fossil fuels as environmentally beneficial or benign
and fail to mention the products’ role in causing environmentally injurious climate change. The
emphasis on lower emissions, “cleaning” terminology, and positive environmental imagery andmessaging—individually and together—in Defendants’ advertisements are likely to mislead
reasonable consumers by suggesting that Defendants’ fuels are environmentally beneficial or
benign when they contribute to climate change like any other fossil fuel product. The examples
are representative of Defendants’ other advertisements and public statements in Defendants’greater greenwashing strategy to confuse consumers about the consequences of using fossil fuelproducts and consequently to increase demand for those fossil fuel products.
a.

BP advertises Invigorate—one of its gasoline additives—as better than“ordinary fuels” that produce “increased emissions.” BP advertises that “gasoline with invigorate
helps clean & protect.”207 The company omits any mention of its products’ leading role in causing
climate change. In 2020, BP launched a new campaign focused on fuel efficiency. The campaign
also includes significant investment in both digital advertising and on signage at BP and Amoco
stations.
b.

Since at least 2016, Exxon has offered for sale and marketed its Synergy

fossil fuels, including, since at least 2020, at a substantial number of Exxon-branded gas stationsin Chicago and Illinois. In Exxon’s advertisements for its Synergy fuels, including those on or

207

BP PROD. N. AM. INC., CHICAGO TRIBUNE, at 1 (Nov. 2, 2008).
105

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

near the gas pumps at Exxon-branded gas stations in Chicago and Illinois, Exxon makes several
claims that a reasonable consumer would understand to mean that the Synergy fuels are beneficial
or benign, and not harmful, to the environment. For example, Exxon consistently promotes
Synergy fuels as “clean” or “cleaner,” and the company’s climate strategy mentions its Synergy
fuel, claiming it can help reduce GHG emissions. Exxon also cites Synergy’s alleged reductionof CO2 emissions in Exxon’s advertisement of the company’s improved environmental
performance. An advertisement on Exxon’s website, which is reproduced on the following page,
includes an image featuring a bright sunrise in a clear sky over hills of green grass, green trees,
and little to no industrial or urban development.

106

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

Figure 10: ExxonMobil Fuels “Environmental Performance” websitec.

In addition to its Synergy fuels, Exxon offers for sale, and has marketed,

Mobil 1™ ESP x2 motor oil to Chicago and Illinois consumers. From 2016 through at least 2022,

107

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

Exxon promoted Mobil 1™ ESP x2 on the website Energy Factor—effectively a corporate blog
for Exxon, in which Exxon claims to discuss developing safe and reliable energy sources for the
future—in a post titled, “Green motor oil? ExxonMobil scientists deliver an unexpected
solution.”208 According to its advertisement of Mobil 1™ ESP x2, Exxon specially formulated
the green oil to “contribute to [] carbon-emission reduction efforts.” Exxon’s advertising suggests
to the consumer that purchase and use of this motor oil conveys an environmental benefit, when
in fact the opposite is true.
d.

Shell also describes its products as “cleaning” and that their use “produces

fewer emissions.”209 Shell’s repeated claim that its products are clean, and its frequent use ofgreen and environmentally positive imagery in its marketing materials, individually and together,
are likely to mislead reasonable consumers into believing that Shell’s fuels are environmentally
beneficial or benign, when in fact they are fossil fuels which, when used as designed and intended,
contribute to climate change.
e.

Similarly, Chevron’s gasoline offered for sale and marketed throughout thecountry, is marketed as having “cleaning power” that minimizes emissions. Chevron’s repeatedemphasis on “cleaning” terminology, its focus in its marketing materials on “advancing a lower
carbon future,” and its express solicitation of consumers who “care for the environment,” areGreen motor oil? ExxonMobil scientists deliver an unexpected solution, EXXONMOBIL (Jul. 19,
2016)https://web.archive.org/web/20220221083851/https://energyfactor.exxonmobil.com/energyinnovation/transportation/green-motor-oil-exxonmobil-scientists-deliver-unexpected-solution/.
208

Shell
Gasoline,
SHELL
https://web.archive.org/web/20231213183548/https://www.shell.us/motorist/shell-fuels/shellgasoline.html (last visited Dec. 13, 2023).
209

108

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

likely to mislead reasonable consumers by suggesting that Chevron’s fuels are environmentally
beneficial or benign, when they are not.210f.

ConocoPhillips, through its 76-branded gas stations in Chicago and Illinois,

offers for sale and markets its 76-brand fossil fuels. In ConocoPhillips’s advertisements for its
76-brand fuels, including advertisements on or near the pumps at 76-branded gas stations in
Chicago and Illinois, ConocoPhillips claims that its fuels “clean” a car’s engine, resulting in“lower emissions,” and that deposits left from other gasolines “can increase emissions.”
ConocoPhillips advertises that 76’s fossil fuels are “better for the environment.”211 The 76 website
for 76’s fuels contains the marketing materials shown below, in which ConocoPhillips makes theclaim—superimposed on an image of a bluebird standing on a car’s side mirror and looking at
the viewer, with silhouetted trees in the background—that 76 and its fossil fuels align with thevalues of environmentally conscious consumers: “We’re on the driver’s side®. And theenvironment’s.”

Chevron, Corporate Sustainability Report: The Energy Transition, LINKEDIN
https://web.archive.org/web/20231213184101/https://www.linkedin.com/posts/chevron_corporat
e-sustainability-report-the-energy-activity-7061799648075657217-fa21/ (last visited Dec. 13,2023).
210

TOP
TIER®
Gas,
76
GAS
STATIONS
https://web.archive.org/web/20231213204301/https://www.76.com/top-tier-gas/ (last visited Dec.
13, 2023).
211

109

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

Figure 11: ConocoPhillips 76 Fuels Website: Top Tier Gas
161.

Defendants also misleadingly portray natural gas as environmentally beneficial or

benign, failing to mention the products’ role in causing environmentally injurious climate change.
Defendants’ misleading messaging regarding the alleged environmental benefits of natural gas is
likely to mislead reasonable consumers by suggesting that fossil fuels, in particular natural gas,
are environmentally beneficial and not harmful to the climate. In reality, the majority of natural
gas is derived from fossil fuels, and its primary constituent is methane, a potent greenhouse gas
which plays a significant role in accelerating climate change. Methane has a relatively shortlifespan, but its “global warming potential” is approximately 28 times greater than an equivalentweight of carbon dioxide over a 100-year time period, and approximately 84 times greater thancarbon dioxide over a 20-year timeframe. Accounting for methane leaks, flaring, and venting in
production and supply chains, the net GHG emissions of natural gas are on par with—andsometimes higher than—the GHG emissions from coal combustion. Moreover, combustion of
methane for use as a fuel emits carbon dioxide.

110

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

162.

In 2005, Exxon Mobil advertised in the Chicago Tribute, stating, “We are making

significant investments in the future supply of clean-burning natural gas.”212
163.

ConocoPhillips has released advertisements on Facebook stating, “Natural Gas:

efficient, affordable, environmentally-friendly. Find out how natural gas is meeting global energy
demand while reducing climate-related risks,” and linking to a page on their website.213
164.

In advertisements in The New York Times and The Washington Post, Shell touts its

investments in “lower-carbon transport fuels,” including natural gas. In “The Mobility Quandary,”
under a “Finding Sustainable Solutions” banner, Shell singles out natural gas as “a criticalcomponent of a sustainable energy mix” and a “cleaner-burning fossil fuel.”214 In “The Making of
Sustainable Mobility,” Shell describes natural gas as “a cleaner fossil fuel” with a “lighter carbon
footprint.”
165.

In 2017, the Dutch Advertising Code Authority censured Shell and Exxon foradvertising natural gas as the “cleanest fossil fuel.” The Advertising Code Authority reasoned thatthe claim “suggested that fossil fuels can be clean in that they do not cause environmental damage.
It is firm . . . that that suggestion is not correct.”215 Yet Shell, along with other Defendants,
continues to make the same representations in the United States, including in Chicago.

Tomorrow’s Energy, Today’s Investments, CHICAGO TRIBUNE (Nov. 6, 2005),
https://www.newspapers.com/image/231451774/?terms=%22ExxonMobil%22&match=1.
212

ConocoPhillips, Natural gas makes renewables possible, FACEBOOK AD LIBRARY,
https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?id=222072331979534 (last visited Dec. 13, 2023).
213

The
Mobility
Quandary,
WASH.
POST
CREATIVE
GROUP
https://www.washingtonpost.com/brand-studio/shell/the-mobility-quandary/ (last visited Dec. 13,2023).
214

Arthur Neslen, Shell and Exxon Face Censure Over Claim Gas Was ‘Cleanest Fossil Fuel’,
THE
GUARDIAN
(Aug.
14,
2017,
12:14
PM
EDT),
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/14/shell-and-exxon-face-censure-overclaim-gas-was-cleanest-fossil-fuel.
215

111

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

166.

The Fossil Fuel Defendants also collectively promote their fossil fuel products

through Defendant API, which makes public statements and claims about oil and natural gas.
These include advertisements and promotional campaign websites that have been directed at
and/or reached Chicago and Illinois, which reasonable consumers would understand to mean that
the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ fossil fuels are beneficial or benign and not harmful to theenvironment. In particular, API’s marketing material falsely promotes the narrative that natural
gas is an environmentally friendly fuel. A Facebook advertisement by API states, “Cleaner burning
natural gas reduces CO2 emissions at home and bolsters energy security abroad.”216
167.

In several advertisements in The Washington Post—e.g., “Why natural gas will

thrive in the age of renewables,” “Real climate solutions won’t happen without natural gas andoil,” and “Low- and no-carbon future starts with natural gas”—API has misleadingly touted natural
gas as “part of the solution” to climate change. API claims natural gas is “clean.”217 API also
promotes natural gas’s purported benefits through a campaign titled “Energy for a Cleaner
Environment.”
168.

API further claims, falsely, that, “[n]atural gas is an economical, environmentallyfriendly complement to renewable energy. The sooner green activists realize that, the more
effective they’ll be at continuing to slash emissions.”218
American Petroleum Institute, LNG is pro-environment and pro-energy security, FACEBOOK AD
LIBRARY https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?id=321331956671661 (last visited Dec. 13,2023).
216

Why natural gas with thrive in the age of renewables, WASH. POST CREATIVE GROUP
https://www.washingtonpost.com/brand-studio/api-why-natural-gas-will-thrive-in-the-age-ofrenewables/ (last visited Dec. 13, 2023); Mike Sommers, Real climate solutions won’t happen
without natural gas and oil, WASH. POST (Dec. 14, 2020) https://www.washingtonpost.com/brandstudio/wp/2020/12/14/real-climate-solutions-wont-happen-without-natural-gas-and-oil/.
217

WP Brand Studio Content from API, Low- and no-carbon future starts with natural gas, WASH.
POST CREATIVE GROUP (Feb. 15, 2019) https://www.washingtonpost.com/brandstudio/wp/2019/02/15/low-and-no-carbon-future-starts-with-natural-gas/.
218

112

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

169.

Additionally, Defendants often represent hydrogen fuel as “clean,” “renewable,” or“zero / low carbon.” These representations omit that the vast majority of hydrogen fuel is produced
from fossil gas.219 For example, ExxonMobil issued an advertisement on Twitter stating,“Hydrogen is the most abundant element on earth. And because hydrogen fuel is versatile - andproduces no emissions at point-of-use, #hydrogen can play a big role helping society meet its netzero goals.”220 In another example, Shell has posted on Twitter, “A car that only emits water andheat? Learn more about #hydrogen, a fuel for the future that can help clean up transport today#makethefuture.”221
170.

Defendants

also

misrepresentthecharacteristics

ofbiofuels.

These

misrepresentations fail to disclose that biofuels created from bioethanol and used in gasoline
engines are typically still majority fossil fuel, and Fossil Fuel Defendants’ production of biofuels
is insignificant compared to fossil fuel production and fuel demand. For example, Chevron has a
Renewable Energy Group that produces “EnDura Fuels,” which it advertises as “A Simple Lower
Carbon Solution Now.”222 The front page of Chevron’s website, as of September 8, 2023, features

See Hydrogen Production: Natural Gas Reforming, U.S. DEP’T OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY &RENEWABLE ENERGY, https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-natural-gasreforming (last visited Nov. 15, 2023).
219

ExxonMobil(@ExxonMobil),
TWITTER
(Aug.
3,
2023,
10:00
AM),
https://twitter.com/exxonmobil/status/1687116317302870016 (The advertisement also includes avideo where an Exxon employee touts hydrogen as “decarbonizing.” The advertisement later
shows a diagram (but nothing spoken) showing that hydrogen comes from natural gas.).
220

Shell USA (@Shell USA), TWITTER (Dec.
https://twitter.com/Shell_USA/status/943401985193242625.
221

20,

2017,

2:45

AM),

Endura Fuels: A Simple Lower Carbon, CHEVRON RENEWABLE ENERGY GROUP
https://www.regi.com/ (last visited Nov. 15, 2023).
222

113

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024“renewable diesel,”223 and another page on its website touts biofuels used on ships224 and an ad
campaign linking to that page.225 The page says, “Biofuels can quickly change transportation
sectors for the better. When used as a marine fuel, biofuels can reduce greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions on a lifecycle analysis.” Similarly, BP claims in ads that “We’re making motor oil that’s
25 [percent] sugarcane based” to “make energy cleaner and better.”226
171.

ExxonMobil has numerous advertisements, including in the Chicago Tribune,

touting its biofuel development while omitting the fact that the company spent only 0.2 percent of
its capital investments on bioenergy from 2010 to 2018.227 Exxon’s investment in potential
renewable fuels, such as biofuels, has been miniscule compared to its overall profits and to its
investments in developing and expanding its fossil fuels business. One analysis comparing
Exxon’s advertised goal of producing 10,000 barrels of biofuels per day by 2025 to Exxon’s fossil
fuel refinery operations found that the goal for biofuel production would amount to only 0.2
percent of Exxon’s refinery capacity, as reported in 2019—in essence, a rounding error. Also,
Exxon’s advertisements touting the development of biofuels from plant waste substantiallyoverplayed the likely environmental benefits by failing to acknowledge the intensive energy
advancing energy progress, CHEVRON, https://www.chevron.com/ (last visited Nov. 15, 2023);
see also Chevron, Energy Everywhere: Renewable Diesel – Episode 2, YOUTUBE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VToz7w4uRg&t=6s (last visited Nov. 15, 2023) (video
embedded on front page).
223

biofuels
steer
intomaritime
sector,CHEVRON(July
https://www.chevron.com/newsroom/2023/q3/biofuels-steer-into-maritimesector?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=corporate.
2245,2023),

Chevron, Biofuels Steer into Maritime Sector, FACEBOOK AD LIBRARY
https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?id=1241282153250811 (last visited Nov. 15, 2023).
225

BP
America,
Possibilities
Everywhere,
FACEBOOKADLIBRARY,
https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?id=353302112007843 (last visited Nov. 15, 2023).
226

Anjli Raval & Leslie Hook, Oil and Gas Advertising Spree Signals Industry’s Dilemma,
FINANCIAL TIMES, (March 6, 2019), https://www.ft.com/content/5ab7edb2-3366-11e9-bd3a8b2a211d90d5.
227

114

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

required to process that plant waste, which would create substantial additional GHG emissions. In
recent years, Exxon has quietly abandoned its investments in developing algae as a biofuel, but
Exxon continues to invest in its development of fossil fuels, as it has done for decades.
172.

Exxon regularly advertises its efforts to capture and store carbon, leaving

consumers, including those in Chicago, with the impression that Exxon does this to benefit theclimate. Exxon does not disclose that the massive energy required to capture that carbon is poweredby fossil fuels emitting more greenhouse gasses into the air.228 Further, nearly all the carbon Exxon
has captured was not simply stored, but used to drill for more oil.
173.

Defendants also regularly portray themselves and their businesses as sustainable,

healthy, or compatible with a low carbon economy, and style themselves as corporate leaders indeveloping and providing non-fossil energy systems, such as solar, wind, and biofuels, and inlowering greenhouse gas emissions. But in reality, these companies’ capital investments in nonfossil energy systems are extremely low compared to their investments in fossil fuel production—
and are much lower than implied to consumers in advertisements. For example, from 2010 to 2018,•

BP spent only 2.3 percent of its capital investments on low-carbon energy
sources;•

Chevron 0.2 percent (0.1 percent of which was in carbon capture, utilization,and storage);•

ConocoPhillips 0.0 percent;•ExxonMobil 0.2 percent; andNicholas Kusnetz, Exxon’s Long-Shot Embrace of Carbon Capture in the Houston Area Just
Got Massive Support from Congress, INSIDE CLIMATE NEWS (Sept. 25, 2022),
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/25092022/exxon-houston-ship-channel-carbon-capture/.
228

115

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024•

Shell 1.2 percent (0.3 percent of which was in carbon capture, utilization, andstorage).229

174.

There is little evidence that those figures have increased since 2018. 230 On thecontrary, Defendants are ramping up fossil fuel production. Exxon is projected to increase oil
production by more than 35 percent between 2018 and 2030—a sharper rise than over the previous
12 years.231 Shell is forecast to increase output by 38 percent by 2030, by increasing its crude oil
production by more than half and its gas production by over a quarter.232 BP is projected to increase
production of oil and gas by 20 percent by 2030.233 Chevron set an oil production record in 2018of 2.93 million barrels per day.234 A 2019 investor report touted Chevron’s “significant reserve
additions in 2018” in the multiple regions in North America and around the world, as well as
significant capital projects involving construction of refineries worldwide.235
175.

Moreover, revenue and other business data from non-fossil energy systems are

typically absent from fossil fuel companies’ annual reports—an implicit admission that these229

Raval & Hook, supra note 227.

Stuart Braun, Shell, BP boost profit, sink investment in renewable energy, DW (Feb. 10, 2023),
https://www.dw.com/en/shell-bp-boost-profit-sink-investment-in-renewable-energy/a-64656800;
Lauren Kent, Big oil companies are spending millions to appear ‘green.’ Their investments tell a
different story, report shows, CNN (updated Sept. 8, 2022, 11:09 AM EDT),
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/07/energy/big-oil-green-claims-report-climate-intl/index.html.
230

Jonathan Watts et al., Oil firms to pour extra 7m barrels per day into markets, data shows, THE
GUARDIAN
(Oct.
10,
2019,
7:00
EDT),
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/10/oil-firms-barrels-markets.
231

232

Id.

233

Id.

Kevin Crowley & Eric Roston, Chevron Aligns Strategy With Paris Deal But Won’t Cap Output,
BLOOMBERG(updated
Feb.
7,
2019,
12:29
PM
CST),
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-07/chevron-pledges-alignment-with-parisaccord-but-won-t-cap-output.
234

Chevron 2019 Investor Presentation, CHEVRON (Feb. 2019), https://chevroncorp.gcsweb.com/static-files/c3815b42-4deb-4604-8c51-bde9026f6e45.
235

116

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

companies do not view non-fossil energy systems as material to their business or company value.
In contrast, advertisements often misleadingly portray non-fossil energy systems as a significant
or predominant part of company business.
176.

As part of their greenwashing efforts, Defendants have cast their businesses ascommitted to addressing environmental challenges like climate change, and even as leaders inefforts to mitigate climate change. In so doing, Defendants have cast their businesses—
overwhelmingly dedicated to the further development, production, and sale of fossil fuels—asenvironmentally sustainable.
177.

BP has misleadingly portrayed itself, and continues to misleadingly portray itself,

as a climate leader, claiming that it aims to be a net-zero company by 2050 or sooner. Beginningin 2000, BP began a $200 million campaign claiming it was moving “beyond petroleum” withadvertisements portraying BP as predominantly invested in clean energy sources. Messages fromthat campaign included some projects, plans, and an overall theme that BP was going to materiallyreduce its emissions and transition away from petroleum. These advertisements used phrases suchas, “It’s time to go on a low carbon diet,” “It’s time to pull the plug on carbon emissions,” and“It’s time to think outside the barrel,” and “New energy solutions require new schools of thought”
for “finding new sources of clean and renewable energy.”236

236

BP PROD. N. AM. INC., NEWSWEEK (June 18, 2007).
117

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

Figure 12: BP Products North America Inc. in Newsweek
178.

In 2000, BP published a full-page advertisement in the Chicago Tribune,

describing itself as “a new company able to offer global energy solutions,” “a company that makes
gasoline and diesel that produces lower emissions,” and “the world’s leading producer of solar
power;” the advertisement also used BP’s “beyond petroleum” slogan.237 In another full-pageadvertisement in the Chicago Tribune in 2001, BP touted that it is “more than halfway” to237

BP, CHI. TRIBUNE at 13 (Aug. 9, 2000).
118

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024“reduc[ing its] own greenhouse gas emissions to 10 [percent] below 1990 levels by 2010.” In thesame advertisement, BP described itself as “one of the largest producers, as well as consumers ofsolar power in the world,” and wrote, “We are in the oil business. But we are also in the natural
gas business, the solar business, the technology business, the yet-to-be-discovered-energy
business.” 238 In another advertisement in the Chicago Tribune the following year, BP said it was“the first in [its] industry to recognize the risks of global climate change and set a target to reduce[its] own greenhouse gas emissions. [BP] just reached that target, [eight] years ahead of schedule.
It’s a start.”239 In another full-page advertisement in the Chicago Tribune in 2015, BP described
its developments of “cleaner-burning fuels” in Chicagoland, as shown by the figure below.240

238

BP, CHI. TRIBUNE at 11 (Sept. 5, 2001).

239

BP, CHI. TRIBUNE Section at 14 (Aug. 8, 2002).

240

BP PROD. N. AM. INC., CHI. TRIBUNE at 5 (Oct. 1, 2015).
119

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

Figure 13: BP Products North America Inc. advertisement in the Chicago Tribune
179.

BP’s “Possibilities Everywhere” campaign portrayed the company as a leader inclean energy. In its “Blade Runner” advertisement, BP claims that it is “one of the major wind120

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

energy businesses in the US.”241 BP’s recent Facebook advertising campaigns targeted Illinois
Facebook users, claiming: “To help the US meet its climate goals, federal methane rules are
critical. All natural gas production needs to emit less;”242 “Why advocate for carbon pricing?
Because it’s good for the people of Illinois, good for business, and good for the planet;” 243 and“We agree – the world needs fewer emissions. That’s why we’re working to make all forms ofenergy cleaner and better.”244
180.

BP’s representations contain substantial omissions about the company’scommitment to combatting climate change. At the time of its “Blade Runner” advertisement
touting itself as “one of the major wind energy businesses in the US,” BP only owned about one
percent of the installed wind capacity in the U.S. Moreover, at a time of record-breaking profits,
BP is scaling back its plan to lower emissions by 2030, and BP continues to make significant
investments in fossil fuel production, refining, and sales.

241

BP’s installed wind capacity in the US is only about one percent of the market.

BP America, BP Supports Methane Regulation, FACEBOOK AD LIBRARY (July 2021),
https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?active_status=all&ad_type=political_and_issue_ads&co
untry=US&id=216888343522285&view_all_page_id=97279934919&search_type=page&media_type=all.
242

BP America, Bring Carbon Pricing to Illinois, FACEBOOK AD LIBRARY (Sept.-Oct. 2020),
https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?active_status=all&ad_type=political_and_issue_ads&co
untry=US&id=327792575094720&view_all_page_id=97279934919&search_type=page&media_type=all.
243

BP America, Possibilities to Realities, FACEBOOK AD LIBRARY (Nov. 2019),
https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?active_status=all&ad_type=political_and_issue_ads&co
untry=US&id=435441174014180&view_all_page_id=97279934919&search_type=page&media_type=all.
244

121

In 2008, ConocoPhillips published this full-page advertisement in The Atlantic:

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

181.

Figure 14: ConocoPhillips advertisement in The Atlantic
182.

ConocoPhillips claims that its “actions for our oil and gas operations are alignedwith the aims of the Paris Agreement” and touts its actions and achievements toward the net-zeroenergy transition. ConocoPhillips also touts its “Net-Zero Roadmap,” which it describes as a“Paris-Aligned Climate Risk Strategy” and “a comprehensive framework with an ambition to122

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

become a net-zero company for operational emissions by 2050.”245 ConocoPhillips thus focuseson its “operational” emissions while ignoring that combustion of its product continues to emit large
amounts of greenhouse gases.
183.

In June 2023, ConocoPhillips published a profile on its Methane Measurement

Manager Milind Bhatte, who it claims is helping move the company toward its goal of “netzero.”246
184.

ConocoPhillips’ claims are contradicted by the company’s substantial investments

in expanding its fossil fuel production and sales. For example, the company’s new Willow Projectin Alaska is expected to produce approximately 576 million barrels of oil, with associated indirect
GHG emissions equivalent to 239 million tons of CO2.
185.

Exxon has announced its ambition to achieve net-zero GHG emissions by 2050 andtouts its commitment to helping society reach a lower-emissions future. Exxon has heavily
promoted its investment in developing algae for use as a biofuel to reduce emissions and combat
climate change. Exxon’s advertising tells consumers that Exxon is working to decrease its carbon
footprint and that its research is leading toward “A Greener Energy Future. Literally.”247
186.

Chevron claims that it “is committed to addressing climate change” and touts its

intentions to invest billions of dollars in carbon reduction projects, as well as its net-zero
Paris-Aligned Climate Risk Strategy, CONOCOPHILLIPS, https://www.conocophillips.com/ (lastvisitedNov.
15,2023);
Operational
Net-Zero
Roadmap,
CONOCOPHILLIPS
https://www.conocophillips.com/sustainability/low-carbon-technologies/operational-net-zeroroadmap/ (last visited Nov. 15, 2023).
245

Gus Morgan, Milind Bhatte: Progressing toward net-zero, CONOCOPHILLIPS (June 27, 2023)
https://www.conocophillips.com/spiritnow/story/milind-bhatte-progressing-toward-netzero/?utm_medium=osocial&utm_source=Twitter&utm_content=image&utm_term=post:16665
04399403316370&utm_campaign=campaign:1601648882546323569.
246

ExxonMobil, The Future of Energy? It May Come From Where You Least Expect, NEW YORKTIMES https://www.nytimes.com/paidpost/exxonmobil/the-future-of-energy-it-may-come-fromwhere-you-least-expect.html (last visited Dec. 13, 2023).
247

123

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024“aspirations.” And Chevron’s director states in a 2021 report, “We believe the future of energy
will be lower carbon, and we intend to be a leader in that future.”248 Its CEO claims that Chevron’s“work to create fuels of the future—like hydrogen, renewable diesel, and sustainable aviation
fuel—seeks to lower the carbon intensity of these products and support our customers’ efforts to
reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.”249 Chevron representatives have even delivered public
seminars at top educational institutions, deceptively claiming Chevron uses its “uniquecapabilities, assets and expertise to deliver progress” toward the global ambition of achieving netzero carbon emissions.
187.

Chevron’s website contains a page titled, “explainer: what is carbon intensity?”250

The page states that “Chevron’s upstream carbon intensity (UCI) metric is used to measure theemission intensity of oil and gas production.,” and, “To date, [Chevron] ha[s] identified nearly 100
potential projects to further lower [its] greenhouse gas intensity.” This page is misleading because
it suggests that Chevron is working to lower the greenhouse gas emissions associated withproduction of its products, while ignoring that post-production, the combustion of oil and gas in
its intended uses creates huge amounts of greenhouse gas emissions.
188.

Chevron’s minimal efforts in the area of renewable and lower-carbon energy,

coupled with its expansion of its fossil fuel business, belie its statements suggesting that it is partof the climate change solution. Chevron in fact sold its only renewable energy holding in 2018.
Moreover, from 2010 to 2018, according to one analysis, Chevron’s investments in low-carbon
Roderick Green, Energy Transition Spotlight, CHEVRON (Sept. 14, 2021)
https://chevroncorp.gcs-web.com/static-files/1ba3162e-f798-444b-9368-fc7b4ab7842a#page=5.
248

Climate change resilience: Advancing a lower carbon future, CHEVRON, at 1 (2021),
https://www.chevron.com/-/media/chevron/sustainability/documents/2021-climate-changeresilience-report.pdf#page=3.
249

Explainer: What is Carbon Intensity, CHEVRON(Nov.
https://www.chevron.com/newsroom/2022/q4/explainer-what-is-carbon-intensity.
250

124

22,

2022)

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

energy sources were only 0.2 percent of Chevron’s capital spending, compared to 99.8 percent incontinuing its fossil fuel exploration and development.251 Chevron to this day continues toprioritize capital expenditures in its traditional fossil fuel business over its investments inrenewable and low-carbon energy.
189.

Shell also falsely portrays itself to consumers, including in Chicago, as part of theclimate solution. For example, in 2006, Shell issued a full-page advertisement in the Chicago
Tribune stating “The world needs to tackle CO[2] emissions” and touting the company’s
investment in carbon capture and storage as part of that project.
190.

Shell published another advertisement in the Chicago Tribune casting Shell as acorporate leader in responding to climate change.

Greenwashing Files: Chevron, CLIENTEARTH, https://www.clientearth.org/projects/thegreenwashing-files/chevron/ (last visited Dec. 7, 2023).
251

125

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

Figure 15: Shell advertisement in the Chicago Tribune

126

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

191.

Shell claims that it aims to become a net-zero emissions252 energy business by 2050,

and that it is “tackling climate change.” Shell has a webpage, and a report co-written by Deloitte,on “Decarbonizing Construction.”253
192.

One of Shell’s public relations firms described the intent of Shell’s Make The

Future campaign, stating: “As part of their efforts to make consumers, particularly millennials,
aware of their commitment to cleaner energy, Shell launched the #makethefuture campaign. The
company tasked Edelman with the job of giving millennials a reason to connect emotionally with
Shell’s commitment to a sustainable future. We needed them to forget their prejudices about ‘big
oil’ and think differently about Shell.”254
193.

Shell’s 2016 #makethefuture advertising campaign targets young people andmisleadingly portrays the company as heavily engaged in developing and selling clean energy
sources.255
194.

In reality, however, Shell spent only 1.3 percent of its capital investments in low

carbon energy systems from 2010 to 2018.256 Shell planned to spend four times more money on
oil and gas development than on renewable technology in 2022.257 In the first half of 2023, Shell“Net-zero” means achieving a balance between the carbon emitted into the atmosphere, and thecarbon removed from it.
252

Decarbonizing
Construction:
Buildinga
Low-Carbon
Future,https://www.shell.com/business-customers/construction-and-road/decarbonisingconstruction.html (last visited Nov. 15, 2023).
253

SHELL

Shell: South Pole Energy Challenge, EDELMAN, https://archive.ph/IZ8Qz (last visited Nov. 16,2023).
254

See Graham Readfearn, Hey millennials, don’t fall for Shell’s pop star PR, THE GUARDIAN(April 25, 2018), https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2018/apr/25/heymillennials-dont-fall-for-shells-pop-star-pr.
255

256

Raval & Hook, supra note 227.

Simon Jack, Oil giant Shell says it needs oil to pay for green shift, BBC NEWS (Nov. 3, 2021,
2:51 PM CDT), https://www.bbc.com/news/business-59154930.
257

127

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

reported $11.6 billion in total spending, of which less than one billion went to renewables and“energy solutions”—a category that also includes fossil fuel investments, such as marketing andtrading of pipeline gas. Independent analysis of Shell’s spending plans shows that the company
will be emitting more greenhouse gas by 2030 than it currently emits.258 On its current trajectory,
Shell is projected to miss its emissions reduction targets for both 2030 and 2050.259
195.

In June 2023, the U.K.’s Advertising Standards Authority banned Shell’s marketing

campaign describing Shell as providing renewable energy, installing electric vehicle charging, anddriving the energy transition. The Advertising Standards Authority found consumers were likely
to interpret the marketing materials as making a “broader claim about Shell as a whole providing
cleaner energy.” Since the “vast majority” of its operations was not clean energy, the campaign
was misleading.260
196.

API markets itself as being an environmental steward, committed to helping reduce

GHG emissions. API’s 2021 Climate Action Framework portrays the organization as a partner inmoving towards a climate solution, stating: “Our industry is essential to supplying energy thatmakes life modern, healthier and better while doing so in ways that tackle the climate challenge:
lowering emissions, increasing efficiency, advancing technological innovation, building modern
infrastructure and more.”261 As part of this campaign, API has offered on its website, in social
media posts, and in other advertisements that have reached residents of Chicago and Illinois, theimage on the following page, of lush greenery and a message that “88 [percent] of Americans favor
258

Id.

259

Id.

Ed Davey, Shell's clean energy advertising campaign is misleading, UK watchdog says, AP
NEWS (June 7, 2023, 10:50 AM CST), https://apnews.com/article/shell-climate-ad-ban-cleanenergy-a1322233e3ba7e8fa7760367f13dd58c.
260

API Climate Action Framework, AM. PETROLEUM INST. at 5 (2021) https://www.api.org//media/files/ehs/climate-change/2021/api-climate-action-framework.pdf#page=3.
261

128

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

energy companies helping meet environmental challenges.” API elaborates within theadvertisement that “natural gas and oil [] powers and supports modern living . . . with lower
emissions.”

Figure 16: API, We Are America’s Generation Energy
197.

In 2017, API launched an advertising campaign called “Power Past Impossible,”which portrayed the oil and gas industry as a sustainable, healthy, and an essential part of societal
progress.262 API President and CEO Jack Gerrard misleadingly stated that “greenhouse gas
emissions . . . are near 25 year lows,” when greenhouse gas emissions globally were in fact
See American Petroleum Institute, API launches Power Past Impossible campaign during Super
Bowl showing natural gas and oil benefit to consumers in everyday life, PR NEWSWIRE (Feb. 5,
2017, 6:32 PM ET) https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/api-launches-power-pastimpossible-campaign-during-super-bowl-showing-natural-gas-and-oil-benefit-to-consumers-ineveryday-life-300402321.html.
262

129

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

increasing, and total greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. (including methane, not just carbon
dioxide) had not been shown to decline as claimed.263 The campaign’s opening advertisement,
which aired nationally during the Superbowl, stated: “Oil pumps life. Oil runs cleaner.” Theadvertisement ignored, however, the climate and public health harms caused by oil. 264 And as ofJuly 21, 2020, the Power Past Impossible website described oil as “Energy for a Cleaner
Environment.” In touting the environmental benefits of oil, the website also made the following
false or misleading assertions: “This is Energy for a Cleaner Environment,” “99 [percent] Fewer
Vehicle Emissions,” and “Cleanest Air in More Than a Decade.”265 In 2020 API launched anationwide advertising campaign called “Energy for Progress,” which portrays the oil and gas
industry as a leader in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.266 The opening advertisement for the
campaign states that “natural gas and oil companies have . . . reduced carbon emission levels tothe lowest in a generation.”267 Similarly, in a September 2023 Twitter post, API stated “American
natural gas & oil is committed to creating climate solutions.”268
198.

The Energy for Progress website also contains advertisements such as “Five Ways

We’re Helping to Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” which misleadingly portrays the oil and gas
263

Id.

American Petroleum Institute, Oil: Power Past Impossible, YOUTUBE (Feb. 4, 2017),
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4KvOJlu5Xo.
264

See
EnergyforaCleaner
Environment,
POWER PAST IMPOSSIBLE
https://web.archive.org/web/20200602111024/https://powerpastimpossible.org/state-ofamerican-energy/energy-for-a-cleaner-environment/ (last visited Nov. 15, 2023).
265

See API Launches New National Campaign ‘Energy for Progress’, Highlights U.S. Energy
Leadership in Annual State of American Energy Event, AM. PETROLEUM INST. (Jan. 7, 2010),
266

https://www.api.org/news-policy-and-issues/news/2020/01/07/soae-2020-release.
See API, Solving Big Challenges Requires Energy, YOUTUBE (Jan. 7, 2020),
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87ObTFn68ic&feature=youtu.be.
267

American Petroleum Institute (@APIenergy), TWITTER (Sept. 5, 2023, 12:25 PM)
https://twitter.com/APIenergy/status/1699111447593210289.
268

130

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

industry as an environmental leader by focusing on marginal improvements in operationalemissions while ignoring the much greater emissions from the industry’s products.269

Figure 17: API advertisement from its Energy for Progress campaign,used as the campaign’s Facebook banner.
199.

Tellingly, however, API’s strategy does not advocate for or even mention reduction

in fossil fuel production as a strategy to protect the climate. Rather, it focuses on potential technicaladvances and shifting to heavier reliance on natural gas as a “clean fuel.” And an internal API
email shows that its Climate Action Framework was in fact organized around the purpose of “thecontinued promotion of natural gas in a carbon constrained economy.”270 As discussed above,natural gas is far from a “clean” fuel, as API misleadingly claims, as natural gas production anduse contributes substantially to climate change through the release of methane, an extremely potent
greenhouse gas.
See Five Ways We’re Helping to Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions, ENERGY FOR PROGRESS (Apr.
17, 2020), https://energyforprogress.org/article/five-ways-were-helping-to-cut-greenhouse-gasemissions/.
269

See Oversight Committee Releases New Documents Showing Big Oil’s Greenwashing
Campaign and Failure to Reduce Emissions, U.S. HOUSE COMM. ON OVERSIGHT &ACCOUNTABILITY: DEMOCRATS (Dec. 9, 2022), https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/news/pressreleases/oversight-committee-releases-new-documents-showing-big-oil-sgreenwashing#:~:text=Ro%20Khanna%2C%20Chairman%20of%20the,failure%20to%20meani
ngfully%20reduce%20emissions.
270

131

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

H.

Defendants’ Concealments and Misrepresentations Regarding the Dangers of
Fossil Fuel Products Encouraged Continued Use of Fossil Fuels andDiscouraged Concerted Action on Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

200.

Consumer use of fossil fuel products is a significant contributor to climate change.

As a result of Defendants’ sustained and widespread campaign of disinformation, many Chicago
and Illinois consumers have been unaware of the magnitude of the threat posed by their use offossil fuels, or of the relationship between their purchasing behavior and climate change.
201.

For example, Edelman, the PR firm hired by Shell to carry out its #makethefuture

campaign, found that as a result of the campaign, “Audience members are 31 [percent] more likely
to believe Shell is committed to cleaner fuels” and “Positive attitudes towards the brand increasedby 12 [percent].”271
202.

As a result of Defendants’ efforts to deny and undermine climate science andconceal the dangers of fossil fuel consumption, Defendants encouraged consumers to continue to
use fossil fuels. As a result of Defendants’ sustained and widespread campaign of disinformation,
many Chicago and Illinois consumers have been unaware of the strength of the scientific consensus
about the relationship between consumption of fossil fuels and climate change, the magnitude of
the threat posed by their own use of fossil fuels, or of the contribution their purchasing behavior
makes to aggravating the effects of climate change.
203.

In addition to Defendants misleading Chicago consumers by affirmatively

misrepresenting the state of their and the scientific community’s knowledge of climate change andby failing to disclose the dangerous effects of using their products, Defendants have sought tomislead consumers, and induce purchases and brand affinity, with greenwashing advertisements
designed to represent Defendants as environmentally responsible companies developing
Shell: South Pole Energy Challenge, EDELMAN, https://archive.ph/IZ8Qz (last visited Nov. 16,2023).
271

132

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

innovative green technologies and products. In reality, however, Defendants’ business models
continue to center on developing, producing, and selling more of the very same fossil fuel products
driving climate change.
204.

By misleading Chicago consumers about the climate impacts of using fossil fuelproducts, and by failing to disclose the climate risks associated with their purchase and use of those
products, Defendants deprived consumers, including those in Chicago, of information about theconsequences of their purchasing decisions. This led to consumers using more fossil fuels, andusing fossil fuels less efficiently, than they otherwise would have done in the absence ofDefendants’ deception.
205.

Defendants intended for Chicago consumers to rely on their omissions andconcealments and to continue purchasing Defendants’ fossil fuel products without regard for thedamage such products cause.
206.

Knowledge of the risks associated with the routine use of fossil fuel products ismaterial to Chicago and Illinois consumers’ decisions to purchase and use those products. Recent
studies and surveys have found that consumers with substantial awareness of climate change are“concerned about climate change, and a majority expect fellow Americans to be willing to change
their consumption habits as a result.”272 Similarly, informed consumers often attempt to contributetoward solving environmental problems by supporting companies that they perceive to be
developing “green” or more environmentally friendly products.273 These studies demonstrate that
Changes in Consumers’ Habits Related to Climate Change May Require New Marketing andBusiness Models, THE CONFERENCE BD. (Oct. 26, 2022), https://www.conferenceboard.org/topics/consumers-attitudes-sustainability/changes-in-consumer-habits-related-toclimate-change.
272

See Anthony Leiserowitz et al., Consumer Activism on Global Warming, YALE PROGRAM ON
CLIMATE CHANGE COMMC’N, at 3 (2021), https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2021/12/consumer-activism-on-global-warming-september-2021.pdf (about athird of American consumers surveyed report “reward[ing] companies that are taking steps to
273

133

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

some Chicago consumers who received accurate information that fossil fuel use was a primary
driver of climate change, and about the resultant dangers to the environment and to public health,would have decreased their use of fossil fuel products and/or demanded lower-carbon
transportation and product options.
207.

As described herein, by casting doubt upon the scientific consensus on climatechange, Defendants deceived Chicago consumers about the relationship between consumption offossil fuels and climate change, and the magnitude of the threat posed by fossil fuel use. Chicago
consumers equipped with complete and accurate knowledge about the climate and the public healtheffects of continued consumption of fossil fuels would have likely formed a receptive customer
base for clean energy alternatives decades before such demand in fact developed. Instead,
Defendants’ campaign of deception allowed them to exploit public uncertainty to reap substantial
profits.
I.

The Effects of Defendants’ Deceit Are Ongoing.

208.

The consequences of Defendants’ tortious misconduct—in the form of

misrepresentations, omissions, and deceit—began decades ago, and continue to be felt to this day.
As described above, Defendants, directly and/or through membership in other organizations,misrepresented their own activities, the fact that their products cause climate change, and thedanger presented by climate change.
209.

Defendants’ collective goal was to ensure that “[a] majority of the American public,

including industry leadership, recognizes that significant uncertainties exist in climate science, andtherefore raises questions among those (e.g. Congress) who chart the future U.S. course on global

reduce global warming by buying their products” and “punish[ing] companies that are opposing
steps to reduce global warming by not buying their products.”).
134

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

climate change.”274 In 2023, only 20 percent of Americans understand how strong the level ofconsensus is among scientists that human-caused global warming is happening, and 28 percent
think climate change is caused mostly by natural changes in the environment.275
210.

Defendants’ misrepresentations, omissions, and deceit had a significant and long-

lasting effect on how the public views climate change and the dangers of fossil fuel use that
continues to the present day. By sowing doubt in the minds of the public, Defendants substantiallyaltered the public discourse on climate change, and intentionally delayed action on climate change.
211.

If Defendants had been forthcoming about their own climate research andunderstanding of the dangers of fossil fuel products, consumers and the public could have madesubstantial progress in transitioning to a lower-carbon economy, at a much earlier time, potentiallyaverting some of the effects of the climate crisis that Chicago is experiencing today.
212.

The fact that Defendants and their proxies knowingly provided incomplete andmisleading information to the public, including to Chicago consumers, only recently became
discoverable due to, among other things:a.

Defendants’ above-described campaign of deception, which continues tob.

Defendants’ efforts to discredit climate change science and create thethis day;appearance that such science is uncertain;c.

Defendants’ concealment and misrepresentations regarding the fact that

their products cause catastrophic harms; andJoe Walker, Email to Global Climate Science Team re Draft Global Climate Science
Communications Plan (Apr. 3, 1998), https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/784572/apiglobal-climate-science-communications-plan.pdf.
274

275

Leiserowitz et al., supra note 178.
135

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

d.

Defendants’ use of front groups such as API, the Global Climate Coalition,and the National Mining Association to obscure their involvement in these actions.
213.

By concealing the very fact of their campaign of deception, including by using front

groups to obscure their own involvement in the deception, Defendants concealed their unlawful
conduct from the public and the City, thereby preventing it from discovering the facts underlying
the claims alleged herein.
J.

The City Has Suffered, Is Suffering, and Will Continue to Suffer Injuries from
Defendants’ Wrongful Conduct.

214.

The City of Chicago has already suffered negative environmental and physicalconsequences of climate change. Chicago has incurred, and will incur, significant costs towithstand increased hot weather events, effects of increased winter temperatures, increased
precipitation and flooding, and negative impacts on Lake Michigan. “Heat waves cause heatrelated deaths and illness, worse air quality, and increased reliance on costly electricity for fans
and air conditioning. More frequent heavy downpours cause basement flooding and property
damage, sewage overflows, contamination of local waterways, and transit disruptions. Warmer
spring temperatures lengthen the pollen season and increase exposure to allergens. Changing Lake
Michigan water levels and temperature increase shoreline erosion, property damage, and thepotential for toxic algae blooms.”276
215.

The City is committed to protecting Chicagoans from the damaging effects thatclimate change has, and will continue to have, on the City and its residents. “While all Chicagoans

CITY OF CHICAGO, CHICAGO CLIMATE ACTION PLAN at 14 (2022),
https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/sites/climate-action-plan/documents/Chicago-CAP071822.pdf [hereinafter “Chicago Climate Action Plan”].
276

136

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

directly experience climate change impacts, frontline communities experience the most immediate
and worst effects.”277
Increased Heat Events
216.

Climate change has already resulted in (and will continue to result in) an increasein average summer temperatures and the frequency of extreme heat in Chicago.
217.

2023 was the hottest year on record. Heat waves and high-heat days will continue

to be an increasing problem in Chicago.278
218.

Heat waves and high-heat days dramatically increase the risk that Chicagoans will

suffer from heat-related illnesses that can often be fatal.
219.

In 1995, for example, 739 Chicagoans tragically died as a result of a four-day heatwave. Many of the victims of the 1995 heat wave were elderly, low-income, and Black, living inareas that experience urban heat island effects, apartments without ventilation or air conditioning,
and in neighborhoods lacking social infrastructure and critical resources to withstand extreme heat
events.
220.

Low-income communities and communities of color are disproportionately

impacted by heat waves and high heat days. For example, the maps below depict the averagesummer surface temperature and the environmental justice areas in the City.

277

Id.

Tara Molina, With 2023 set to be the warmest year on record, experts have warning for Chicago,
CBS
NEWS
CHICAGO(updated
Nov.
9,
2023,
6:34
PM
CST),
https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/2023-warmest-year-on-record-experts-warningchicago/.
278

137

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

Figure 18: Chicago Heat and Environmental Justice Index Maps279
221.

By mid-century, scientists expect heat waves as intense as the 1995 heat waves tooccur between two and five times a decade. By the end of the century, scientists project that heatwaves like the 1995 heat wave could occur multiple times each year.280
222.

Without implementing costly heat resiliency measures, such as cooling centers andgreen infrastructure that reduces urban heat islands, the effects of increased heat waves and highheat days could be catastrophic.

Chicago Climate Action Plan, supra note 276, at 14; Sarah Macaraeg, Mapping a threat: Readthe investigation on disparities in Chicago’s summer heat, CHICAGO TRIBUNE (May 25, 2023, 5:00
AM),
https://www.chicagotribune.com/investigations/chicago-heat-disparities-202305262owgm4dyubfbpbby2fchm35zmi-list.html.
279

CHICAGO METROPOLITAN AGENCY FOR PLANNING, APPENDIX A: PRIMARY IMPACTS OF CLIMATECHANGEIN
THE
CHICAGOREGIONat12(June2013),
https://www.cmap.illinois.gov/documents/10180/14193/Appendix+A++Primary+Impacts+of+Climate+Change+in+the+Chicago+Region.pdf/2a85b021-f3bd-4b9881d1-f64890adc5a7.
280

138

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

223.

Historically, the high temperature in the Chicago region reaches 95°F only threedays each year. By mid-century, the high temperature is expected to reach 95°F at least ten to 15
days annually.281 By 2090, the number of very hot days is projected to increase to between ten and
90 per year.282 Overnight average temperatures have historically topped 70°F just 13.5 nights per
year. The number of nights with an average temperature over 70°F is expected to increase to 30 to
40 nights per year.283 Historically, the heat index in Chicago has surpassed 105°F one time per
year. By mid-century, Chicago is expected to have between nine and 14 days with a heat index of
105°F or more, and by late century, between 12 and 34 days with a heat index of 105°F or more,
depending on whether action is taken to address climate change.284

CHICAGO METROPOLITAN AGENCY FOR PLANNING, ON TO 2050 STRATEGY PAPER CLIMATERESILIENCE
at
8(2016),
https://www.cmap.illinois.gov/documents/10180/517388/Climate+Resilience+Strategy+Paper.pd
f/dd610883-d00f-407d-808b-484f9800a3f6 [hereinafter “Chicago Climate Resiliency Strategy
Paper”].
281

ClimateChangeinIllinois,IL.
STATE
CLIMATOLOGIST,
https://stateclimatologist.web.illinois.edu/climate-change-in-illinois/ (last visited Nov. 15, 2023).
282

283

Id.

Kristina Dahl et. al, Killer Heat in the United States Climate Choices and the Future ofDangerously Hot Days, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS (July 2, 2019),
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/killer-heat-united-states-0.
284

139

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

Figure 19: Monthly High and Low Temperatures for Chicago285
Increased Seasonal Temperature
224.

Climate change is also causing an increase in seasonal temperatures, which creates

several problems that Chicago will have to address through resiliency measures.
225.

Since 1970, Chicago’s winters have warmed an average of 3.2°F. By mid-century,

Chicago is projected to have 22 fewer days per year with a minimum temperature below 32°F.
One study of the Chicago region estimates a 50 to 90 percent decline in days below 0˚F by the endof the 21st century.286

Chicago, IL Top Climate Change Risks: Precipitation, Heat, Drought, CLIMATE CHECK,
https://climatecheck.com/illinois/chicago (last visited Nov. 15, 2023).
285

Id. at 13.; Chicago Climate Resiliency Strategy Paper, supra note 281, at 9; Steve Varus & Jeff
Van Dorn, Projected future temperature and precipitation extremes in Chicago, J. OF GREAT LAKES
RSCH.,
at22-32(2010),
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0380133009001841.
286

140

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

226.

Increasing winter temperatures causes an increase in freeze-thaw events (the cycleof moving from below to above freezing conditions). Freeze-thaw cycles lead to wear-and-tear on
the built environment, causing more rapid buckling and deterioration of roadways and of otherbuilt infrastructure.287
227.

Increased winter temperatures have also caused ice cover to diminish in the Great

Lakes by 63 percent since the 1970s.288 Diminished ice cover exposes coastal areas of Lake
Michigan to a greater number of storm events each year, increasing the vulnerability of beaches,
shorelines, and waterfront infrastructure to large storm surges. “[T]he effect is heightened by thefact that this additional open water occurs during a period of the year when storm intensity is
generally greatest.”289 Reduced ice cover is also associated with warmer summer months.
228.

Increased winter temperatures also result in an increased retention of humidity inthe atmosphere, which results in more winter rain precipitation rather than snowfall. Although
overall snowfall may decrease, snowstorms will be more intense.290 An increase in intense heavy
snowfall accumulation will result in additional risks and damage to both built and green
infrastructure, such as downed power lines and tree damage.
Increased Precipitation and Flooding
229.

Climate change has increased, and will continue to increase, the number of extreme

precipitation events and flooding in Chicago.

287

Chicago Climate Resiliency Strategy Paper, supra note 281, at 16.

Id. at 9; What Climate Change Means for Wisconsin, EPA (Aug. 2016)
https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/documents/climatechange-wi.pdf.
288

An Assessment of the Impacts of Climate Change on the Great Lakes, ENV’T LAW & POL’Y
CENTER, at 38 (2019), https://elpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2019-ELPCPublicationGreat-Lakes-Climate-Change-Report.pdf [hereinafter “ELPC Report”].
289

290

Chicago Climate Resiliency Strategy Paper, supra note 281, at 15.
141

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

230.

Warmer air holds more water vapor, which results in more precipitation. Between

1979 and 2009, the Chicago region experienced 40 percent more precipitation than the prior 30year period.291
231.

The severity of precipitation events has also increased. In recent years, the ten

rainiest days resulted in nearly 40 percent of the total annual precipitation.292
232.

As the name indicates, 24-hour, 100-year storm events have historically occurredin Chicago, on average, once every 100 years. Since the 1980s, however, Chicago has experienced
three of these storm events—a more than eight-fold increase.293
233.

Historically, Chicago experienced approximately 11 storms annually, which

generated 15.3 inches of precipitation. By 2050, experts project that Chicago will experience
approximately 13 storms annually, which will generate 17.5 inches of precipitation.294
234.

Increasingly frequent and severe storms will lead to major road, rail, and utility

outages, mold in basements, severe erosion, sewer overflows, increased nutrient loading in Lake
Michigan and other surface waters from roadway, agricultural, and landscape runoff, closures of
local businesses, and increased flooding.
235.

Chicago is among the nearly 860 cities across the United States with combined

sewer systems. Combined sewer systems carry both sewage and stormwater. During periods ofintense precipitation or snowmelt, Chicago’s wastewater treatment systems can become291

Id. at 12.

292

Id.

293

Id.

294

Chicago, IL Top Climate Change Risks, supra note 285.
142

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

overwhelmed, and Chicago’s combined sewer system discharges untreated sewage and stormwater
into surface waters.295
236.

“If just two-thirds of an inch of rain falls in 24 hours, the Chicago River can becomeso swollen with sewage and stormwater that the river changes course and flows into Lake Michigan
instead of away from it.”296
237.

In an attempt to mitigate combined sewer overflow events, the Tunnel andReservoir Plan (“TARP”), commonly referred to as the Deep Tunnel, was designed to hold 2.3
billion gallons of combined, untreated wastewater until storm events subside. Rather thandischarging the untreated wastewater into surface waters and Lake Michigan, the Deep Tunnel isdesigned to hold the wastewater until it can be treated and discharged.297
238.

On July 2, 2023, Chicago experienced a rain event that overwhelmed the Deep

Tunnel. Untreated wastewater overflowed at 19 locations across Chicagoland, and the Chicago
River, which contained untreated wastewater from some of these overflow locations, was reversed,
causing untreated wastewater to flow directly into Lake Michigan.298
239.

Untreated wastewater contains harmful bacteria. The July 2023 event caused “poorwater quality conditions,” which closed nearly all of Chicago’s beaches.299
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, CLIMATE CHANGE AND HEALTH IN ILLINOIS 4-5 (Sept.
2019), https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/climate-change-health-impacts-illinois-ib.pdf.
295

296

Id. at 4.

Michael Hawthorne & Adriana Perez, Costly Deep Tunnel flooding project can’t handle
Chicago area’s severe storms fueled by climate change, CHICAGO TRIBUNE (Jul. 16, 2023, 5:00
AM),
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/environment/ct-rain-deep-tunnel-overwhelmed20230716-argrp2ruafadbhu4jrov5iplt4-story.html.
297

Id.; see also James Neveau, Chicago officials reverse flow of river into Lake Michigan to easeflooding from heavy rain, NBC CHICAGO (updated Jul. 2, 2023, 4:25 PM),https://www.nbcchicago.com/weather/chicago-officials-reverse-flow-of-river-into-lakemichigan-to-ease-flooding-from-heavy-rain/3178728/.
298

299

Neveau, supra note 298.
143

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

240.

Storms like the one that occurred on July 2, 2023 illustrate that precipitation events

are becoming so severe that they overwhelm stormwater tunnels and result in “sewage overflows
and basement backups in the 252 square miles of Chicago and [Cook] County served by the mainpart of the [Deep Tunnel] system.”300
241.

Professor Don Wuebbles, an emeritus professor of atmospheric sciences at the

University of Illinois, noted that “[e]ssentially we find that every storm is now being affected byclimate change.”301
242.

Rains of more than 2.5 inches a day, the amount that can trigger sewage dumping

into Lake Michigan, were expected to increase by 50 percent by 2039, and by the end of the
century, the number of big storms could increase by 160 percent.302
243.

Since 2008, “nearly 40 billion gallons of runoff and waste have been released into

Lake Michigan – three times more than during the previous two decades.”303
244.

Chicago is located in a historically low-lying, swampy area, which makes the City

susceptible to flooding caused by increasingly extreme precipitation. From 1969 to 2009, flooding
accounted for 41 percent of disaster losses in Illinois.304
245.

“Flood losses in the city and suburbs cost taxpayers $1.8 billion in subsidized

grants, loans, and insurance payments between 2004 and 2014, according to a 2019 report fromthe National Academy of Sciences. Only hurricane-ravaged areas of coastal Louisiana, New Yorkand Texas received more federal flood aid during the decade.”305
300

Hawthorne & Perez, supra note 297.

301

Id.

302

Id.

303

Id.

304

Chicago Climate Resiliency Strategy Paper, supra note 281, at 23.

305

Hawthorne & Perez, supra note 297.
144

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

246.

Of 1,200 census tracts in Chicago, there are 361 where more than half of buildings

have significant risk from surface (pluvial) flooding and riverine (fluvial) flooding.306
247.

Low-income communities and communities of color are disproportionately

impacted by severe precipitation events and flooding. Minority communities accounted for eightyseven percent of flood damage insurance claims between 2007 and 2016.
248.

The maps below compare the areas of the City with the highest susceptibility toflooding with the environmental justice areas in the City. The map on the left ranks flooding
susceptibility on a scale of one (low susceptibility depicted in blue) to ten (high susceptibility
depicted in red).

Figure 20: Chicago Flooding Frequency and Environmental Justice Index Maps307

306

Chicago, IL Top Climate Change Risks, supra note 285.

Chicago Climate Action Plan, supra note 276, at 14; Brett Chase, Flooding hits poorest
communities hardest as climate change intensifies storms, CRAIN’S CHI. BUS. (Sept. 26, 2019, 1:54PM), https://www.chicagobusiness.com/crains-forum-water/flooding-hits-poorest-chicago-areacommunities-hardest-climate-change.
307

145

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

249.

Widespread and chronic flooding has damaged homes—sometimes irreparably—

causing evacuations, mold-related health issues, emotional distress, and significant costs. A Center
for Neighborhood Technology survey in Cook County found that a majority of respondents
reported increased stress (84 percent), lost hours of work to clean up (74 percent), and lost
valuables (63 percent) as a result of flooding.308
250.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago estimates that the transportation and utility

outages and other effects of extreme weather conditions have contributed to Chicago’s slow rateof growth, including declines in sales and manufacturing production.”309
Lake Michigan
251.

The Great Lakes, including Lake Michigan, “are extremely important both tohumans and to wildlife—they are an abundant freshwater resource for water supplies, industry,
shipping, fishing, and recreation, as well as a rich and diverse ecosystem.”310
252.

As set forth above, climate change has negatively impacted, and will continue tonegatively impact, Lake Michigan’s water quality, ice cover, and shoreline. Extreme precipitation
events and increased temperatures also negatively impact mixing and oxygenation in Lake
Michigan. Vertical mixing of Lake Michigan typically occurs twice a year—once in the spring andonce in the fall as the surface water temperature increases and decreases, respectively. When thesurface water temperature stays above a certain point, mixing is less likely to fully occur. “Thatvertical mixing brings nutrients up from the sediment at the bottom of the lake, and oxygen downfrom the surface, so it is crucial for ecosystems.”311

308

Chicago Climate Resiliency Strategy Paper, supra note 281, at 28.

309

Id.

310

ELPC Report, supra note 289, at 5.

311

Id. at 27.
146

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

253.

Water stagnation from reduced mixing and nutrient loading from extreme

precipitation events also increases the risk of harmful algal blooms, which would threaten thedrinking water source for the vast majority of Chicagoans, require the City to close public accessto beaches, and caution the public against water recreation.312
254.

The change to the Lake Michigan ecosystem as a result of the increased nutrient

load and lack of water column mixing has resulted in documented impacts to many fish species,
including shifts in geographic range, changes in demographics (abundance, growth, recruitment),
increased occurrence of diseases, phenological shifts (earlier migration, spawning), extirpation(especially of cold-water species), and hybridization resulting from novel species interaction.313
These changes negatively impact the City’s recreational fishing industry and, in turn, the City’s
revenue from fishing activities.
255.

Lower water levels and higher summer water temperatures are also affecting somespecies of Great Lakes birds by encouraging the spread of disease and altering migration patterns.
Bird populations in the Chicago area have been impacted by “the increased frequency of botulism
outbreaks in Lake Michigan from 1963 to 2008 . . . related to higher summer water temperaturesand lower water levels.”314 “[A] large share of the population engages in bird and wildlife viewing,with 30 to 35 percent of the population engaged in this activity within a mile of their home in the
Great Lakes States, and eight to 12 percent engaged in this activity further than a mile from theirhome in the Great Lakes States.”315

312

Id. at 29-30.

313

Id. at 31-32.

314

Id. at 36.

315

Id. at 45.
147

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

Chicago’s Climate Resiliency Measures
256.

The City has committed to invest “$188,000,000 in meaningful, substantive, andjustice-oriented climate projects that will provide the City’s underserved communities withresilient infrastructure and green workforce development opportunities” to combat the direct
results of climate change.316
257.

Chicago has and will continue to incur substantial costs to adapt to the impacts ofclimate change. These resiliency measures include, but are not limited to:a.

Building critical infrastructure like cooling centers and buses andretrofitting existing buildings with air conditioning or other cooling capabilities;b.

Recalibrating transportation infrastructure design standards to withstandnew thresholds of heat, freeze-thaw cycles, and buckling from changing temperature andprecipitation patterns;c.

Upgrading infrastructure to reduce road and rail network outages during

extreme weather events;d.

Developing critical infrastructure and flood mitigation measures towithstand severe precipitation events;e.

Providing increased maintenance for roads, transit, and emergency vehicles

to withstand infrastructure damage from severe weather events;f.

Preparing for increased building capital and maintenance costs to repair

damage from severe weather events;

Environmental Justice Climate Investments, CITY OF CHICAGO (July 18, 2022)
https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/sites/climate-action-plan/2022-Climate-BondInfo.pdf.
316

148

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

g.

Increasing landscaping and urban park maintenance costs related to themaintenance of trees, plants, and flowers as a result of the changing seasonal trends and severe
weather events;h.

Increasing harbor dredging and treatment costs;i.

Increasing water treatment, cooling, and other municipal operations;j.

Fortifying the electrical grid to accommodate the increase in demand forheating and cooling; andk.

Deploying wellness checks for vulnerable residents.317
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT ISTRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY – FAILURE TO WARN
(Against Fossil Fuel Defendants)

258.

The City repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference each and every

allegation contained in paragraphs 1-257, as though fully set forth herein.
259.

At all relevant times, the Fossil Fuel Defendants and their affiliates and subsidiaries

were engaged in the business of advertising, promoting, and/or selling fossil fuel products andtheir derivatives. The Fossil Fuel Defendants placed these fossil fuel products and their derivatives
into the stream of commerce.
260.

As advertisers, promoters, and/or sellers of fossil fuel products and theirderivatives, Defendants had a duty to warn the consumers, the public, and the City of thereasonably foreseeable environmental and health risks posed by fossil fuel products and theirderivatives.
Climate Change and Chicago: Projections and Potential Impacts, CHICAGO CLIMATE ACTION
PLAN,
at
1-4
(Nov.
7,
2007),
https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/progs/env/CCAP/Chicago_climate_impacts_report_C
hapter_6_Infrastructure.pdf.
317

149

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

261.

Fossil fuel products and their derivatives are defective and unreasonably dangerous

products and pose significant risks to human health and the environment.
262.

Fossil fuel products and their derivatives release greenhouse gases into theatmosphere, causing global warming, more frequent and extreme precipitation events andflooding, more frequent and extreme drought, more frequent and severe heat waves and extreme
temperatures, more frequent and extreme other weather events, and the consequences and injuries
associated with those physical and environmental changes (“Climate-Related Harms”) result inrisks to human health and safety, damage to property and infrastructure, and loss of use of City
services in the City.
263.

Defendants knew, or should have known, based on information passed to them fromtheir internal research divisions and affiliates, from the non-party trade associations and entities,
and/or from the international scientific community, of the climate effects inherently caused by thenormal use and operation of their fossil fuel products and derivatives, including the ClimateRelated Harms and any other harms and injuries sustained by the City as described herein.
264.

At all times relevant to this action, Fossil Fuel Defendants’ fossil fuel products andtheir derivatives were used, distributed, and sold in a manner in which they were reasonably
foreseeably intended to be used, distributed, and sold, including but not limited to being combusted
for energy, combusted to power automobiles, refined into petrochemicals, and refined and/or
incorporated into petrochemical products including, but not limited to, fuels and plastics.
265.

Fossil Fuel Defendants and their affiliates and subsidiaries knew, or should have

known, that these fossil fuel products and their derivatives would be used by the City, its residents,and others within the City’s limits, amongst others, in the manner reasonably foreseeably
intended.

150

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

266.

Fossil Fuel Defendants knew, or should have known, based on information passed

to them from their internal research divisions and affiliates, from the non-party trade associations
and entities, and/or from the international scientific community, that the Climate-Related Harms
described herein rendered their fossil fuel products and their derivatives dangerous, or likely to be
dangerous, when used in the manner reasonably foreseeably intended.
267.

The fossil fuel products and derivatives that Fossil Fuel Defendants refined,

formulated, designed, manufactured, merchandised, advertised, promoted, and/or sold—whether
used as intended or used in a reasonably foreseeable manner—were not reasonably safe at the timethey left Fossil Fuel Defendants’ control because they lacked adequate warnings and instructions.
268.

The fossil fuel products and their derivatives reached consumers and theenvironment substantially unchanged from that in which they left the Fossil Fuel Defendants’control.
269.

Without adequate warnings, Fossil Fuel Defendants’ fossil fuel products and theirderivatives were unsafe to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by an ordinary
person.
270.

Fossil Fuel Defendants knew that by failing to warn consumers, the City, and the

public of the risks posed by fossil fuels, their products would be purchased, transported, stored,
handled, and used without users and consumers being aware of the hazards fossil fuels pose tohuman health and the environment.
271.

At the time of manufacture, merchandising, advertising, promotion, or sale, Fossil

Fuel Defendants could have provided warnings or instructions regarding the full and completerisks fossil fuel products and their derivatives posed because they knew and/or should have knownof the unreasonable risks of harm associated with the use of these products, as described herein.

151

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

272.

Despite the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ superior and unequal knowledge of the risks

posed by fossil fuel products and their derivatives, the Fossil Fuel Defendants failed to adequately
warn consumers, the City, and the public of the known and foreseeable risks of climate change,
Climate-Related Harms, and other dangers that would inevitably follow from the intended orreasonably foreseeable use of these products.
273.

Not only did Fossil Fuel Defendants fail to adequately warn, but the Fossil Fuel

Defendants also represented, asserted, claimed, and warranted that their fossil fuel products andderivatives were safe for their intended and foreseeable uses.
274.

Any warnings the Fossil Fuel Defendants may have issued as to the risks of theirfossil fuel products and their derivatives were rendered ineffective and inadequate by Fossil Fuel
Defendants’ false and misleading public relations campaigns and statements about fossil fuelproducts, and their years-long efforts to conceal and misrepresent the dangers that follow from theintended or reasonably foreseeable use of such products.
275.

Fossil Fuel Defendants individually and in concert widely disseminated marketing

materials, refuted the scientific knowledge generally accepted at the time, advanced and promoted
pseudo-scientific theories of their own, and developed public relations materials that prevented
reasonable consumers from recognizing or discovering the latent risk that Fossil Fuel Defendants’fossil fuel products and their derivatives would cause grave climate changes, undermining andrendering ineffective any warnings that Fossil Fuel Defendants may have also disseminated.
276.

Accordingly, the ordinary consumer would not recognize that the use of fossil fuelproducts and their derivatives causes global and localized changes in climate, and would result ininjuries to the City, its communities, and its resources, as described herein.

152

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

277.

Fossil Fuel Defendants breached their duty to warn by unreasonably failing toprovide the City, the public, consumers, and users of fossil fuel products and their derivatives withwarnings regarding the potential and/or actual threat to human health and the environment causedby pollution released from the manufacturing and consumption of fossil fuels, despite Fossil Fuel
Defendants’ vast amounts of knowledge and research demonstrating fossil fuels and theirderivatives presented threats to human health and the environment.
278.

Had the Fossil Fuel Defendants provided adequate warnings and not waged adeceptive campaign against climate science, their fossil fuel products and their derivatives would
not have earned widespread acceptance in the marketplace, fossil fuel alternatives could have beendeveloped faster, investment in fossil fuel alternatives would be greater, and/or fossil fuelalternatives would be more used in greater amounts.
279.

Moreover, had the Fossil Fuel Defendants provided adequate warnings about theadverse impacts to public health and the environment that results from the intended and reasonably
foreseeable use of fossil fuel products and their derivatives, the City and its residents would havetaken measures to decrease fossil fuel dependency in order to avoid or lessen the Climate-Related
Harms and property damage that would inevitably follow.
280.

As a result of the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ failure to warn about the unreasonably

dangerous conditions of their fossil fuel products and their derivatives, Fossil Fuel Defendants arestrictly liable to Plaintiff.
281.

The Fossil Fuel Defendants’ conduct was heinous, deceitful, and fraudulent. Fossil

Fuel Defendants undertook such conduct with conscious disregard for the health, safety, property,
and rights of others.

153

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

282.

As a direct and proximate result of the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ failure to warn about

the unreasonably dangerous conditions of their fossil fuel products and derivatives, the City has
incurred and will continue to incur costs and damages related to physical damage to City property,
City infrastructure, human health, and natural resources.
283.

As a direct and proximate result of Fossil Fuel Defendants’ acts and omissions asalleged herein, the City and its residents have suffered monetary losses and damages in amounts
to be proven at trial.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, CITY OF CHICAGO, respectfully requests that this Court enteran Order:a.

finding that Fossil Fuel Defendants failed to warn Plaintiff about the unreasonably
dangerous conditions of the fossil fuel products and their derivatives;b.

holding Fossil Fuel Defendants jointly and severally liable for all past damages theCity has incurred, and future damages the City will incur as a result of Fossil Fuel
Defendants’ conduct, including but not limited to loss-of-use damages, the costs ofenhancing infrastructure, damage to property, any other compensatory andexemplary damages available under Illinois law, interest on the damages according
to law, and any other relief necessary to remedy climate change-related harms that
the City will face;c.

awarding any other damages as permitted by law;d.

awarding litigation costs and attorneys’ fees permitted by law;e.

awarding pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on all monies awarded, as
permitted by law; andf.

granting such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate and just.

154

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

COUNT IINEGLIGENT PRODUCTS LIABILITY – FAILURE TO WARN
(Against Fossil Fuel Defendants)
284.

The City repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference each and every

allegation contained in paragraphs 1-257, as though fully set forth herein.
285.

At all relevant times, the Fossil Fuel Defendants and their affiliates and subsidiaries

were engaged in the business of advertising, promoting, and/or selling fossil fuel products andtheir derivatives.
286.

As advertisers, promoters, and/or sellers of fossil fuel products and theirderivatives, Fossil Fuel Defendants had a duty to warn the public, consumers, and users of suchproducts, including the City, of the reasonably foreseeable environmental and health risks posedby fossil fuel products and their derivatives.
287.

Fossil fuel products and their derivatives release greenhouse gases into theatmosphere, causing Climate-Related Harms, which result in risks to human health and safety,
damage to property and infrastructure, and loss of use of City services in the City.
288.

Fossil Fuel Defendants knew, or should have known, based on information passed

to them from their internal research divisions and affiliates, from the non-party trade associations
and entities, and/or from the international scientific community, of the climate effects inherently
caused by the normal use and operation of their fossil fuel products and derivatives, including the
Climate-Related Harms and any other harms and injuries sustained by the City as describedherein.
289.

At all times relevant to this action, Fossil Fuel Defendants’ fossil fuel products andtheir derivatives were used, distributed, and sold in a manner in which they were reasonably
foreseeably intended to be used, distributed, and sold, including but not limited to being combusted

155

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

for energy, combusted to power automobiles, refined into petrochemicals, and refined and/or
incorporated into petrochemical products including, but not limited to, fuels and plastics.
290.

Fossil Fuel Defendants and their affiliates and subsidiaries knew, or should have

known, that these fossil fuel products and their derivatives would be used by the City, its residents,and others within the City’s limits, amongst others, in the manner reasonably foreseeably
intended.
291.

Fossil Fuel Defendants knew, or should have known, based on information passed

to them from their internal research divisions and affiliates, from the non-party trade associations
and entities, and/or from the international scientific community, that the climate effects describedherein rendered their fossil fuel products and their derivatives dangerous, or likely to be dangerous,
when used in the manner reasonably foreseeably intended.
292.

Fossil Fuel Defendants knew that by failing to warn the City, the public, consumers,

and users of fossil fuels and their derivatives of the risks posed by fossil fuels, their products would
be purchased, transported, stored, handled, and used without users and consumers being aware of
the hazards fossil fuels pose to human health and the environment.
293.

At the time of manufacture, merchandising, advertising, promotion, or sale, Fossil

Fuel Defendants could have provided warnings or instructions regarding the full and completerisks fossil fuel products and their derivatives posed because they knew and/or should have knownof the unreasonable risks of harm associated with the use of these products, as described herein.
294.

Despite the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ superior and unequal knowledge of the risks

posed by fossil fuel products and their derivatives, the Fossil Fuel Defendants failed to adequately
warn consumers, the City, and the general public of the known and foreseeable risks of climate

156

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

change, Climate-Related Harms, and other dangers that would inevitably follow from the intended
or reasonably foreseeable use of these products.
295.

Not only did Fossil Fuel Defendants fail to adequately warn consumers, but theFossil Fuel Defendants also represented, asserted, claimed, and warranted that their fossil fuelproducts and derivatives were safe for their intended and foreseeable uses.
296.

Any warnings the Fossil Fuel Defendants may have issued as to the risks of theirfossil fuel products and their derivatives were rendered ineffective and inadequate by Fossil Fuel
Defendants’ false and misleading public relations campaigns and statements about fossil fuelproducts and their derivatives, and their years-long efforts to conceal and misrepresent the dangers
that follow from the intended or reasonably foreseeable use of such products.
297.

Fossil Fuel Defendants individually and in concert widely disseminated marketing

materials, refuted the scientific knowledge generally accepted at the time, advanced and promoted
pseudo-scientific theories of their own, and developed public relations materials that prevented
reasonable consumers from recognizing or discovering the latent risk that Fossil Fuel Defendants’fossil fuel products and derivatives would cause grave climate changes, undermining and rendering
ineffective any warnings that Fossil Fuel Defendants may have also disseminated.
298.

Accordingly, the ordinary consumer would not recognize that the use of fossil fuelproducts and their derivatives causes global and localized changes in climate, and would result ininjuries to the City, its communities, and its resources, as described herein.
299.

Fossil Fuel Defendants breached their duty to warn by unreasonably failing toprovide the City, the public, consumers, and users of fossil fuel products and their derivatives withwarnings regarding the potential and/or actual threat to human health and the environment causedby pollution released from the manufacturing and consumption of fossil fuels, despite Fossil Fuel

157

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

Defendants’ vast amounts of knowledge and research demonstrating fossil fuels and theirderivatives presented threats to human health and the environment.
300.

Had the Fossil Fuel Defendants provided adequate warnings and not waged adeceptive campaign against climate science, their fossil fuel products and their derivatives would
not have earned widespread acceptance in the marketplace.
301.

Had the Fossil Fuel Defendants provided adequate warnings and not waged adeceptive campaign against climate science, fossil fuel alternatives could have been developed
faster, investment in fossil fuel alternatives would be greater, and/or fossil fuel alternatives would
be more used in greater amounts.
302.

Moreover, had the Fossil Fuel Defendants provided adequate warnings about theadverse impacts to public health and the environment that results from the intended and reasonably
foreseeable use of fossil fuel products and their derivatives, the City and its residents would havetaken measures to decrease fossil fuel dependency in order to avoid or lessen the Climate-Related
Harms and property damage that would inevitably follow.
303.

As a result of the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ failure to warn about the unreasonably

dangerous conditions of their fossil fuel products and their derivatives, Fossil Fuel Defendants areliable to Plaintiff.
304.

The Fossil Fuel Defendants’ conduct was heinous, deceitful, and fraudulent.

Defendants undertook such conduct with conscious disregard for the health, safety, property, andrights of others.
305.

As a direct and proximate result of the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ failure to warn about

the unreasonably dangerous conditions of their fossil fuel products and derivatives, the City has

158

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

incurred and will continue to incur costs and damages related to physical damage to City property,
City infrastructure, human health, and natural resources.
306.

As a direct and proximate result of Fossil Fuel Defendants’ acts and omissions asalleged herein, the City and its residents have suffered monetary losses and damages in amounts
to be proven at trial.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, CITY OF CHICAGO, respectfully requests that this Court enteran Order:a.

finding that Fossil Fuel Defendants failed to warn Plaintiff about the unreasonably
dangerous conditions of the fossil fuel products and their derivatives;b.

holding Fossil Fuel Defendants jointly and severally liable for all past damages theCity has incurred, and future damages the City will incur as a result of Fossil Fuel
Defendants’ conduct, including but not limited to loss-of-use damages, the costs ofenhancing infrastructure, damage to property, any other compensatory andexemplary damages available under Illinois law, interest on the damages according
to law, and any other relief necessary to remedy climate change-related harms that
the City will face;c.

awarding any other damages as permitted by law;d.

awarding litigation costs and attorneys’ fees permitted by law;e.

awarding pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on all monies awarded, as
permitted by law; andf.

granting such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate and just.

159

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

COUNT IIINEGLIGENCE(Against All Defendants)
307.

The City repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference each and every

allegation contained in paragraphs 1-257, as though fully set forth herein.
308.

For years, Defendants possessed knowledge that fossil fuels are the primary causeof climate change and that, if unabated, climate change would cause Climate-Related Harms,
which result in risks to human health and safety, damage to property and infrastructure, and lossof use of City services in the City.
309.

Given the scientific evidence available to and conducted by the Defendants, as

referenced herein, such injury was likely and reasonably foreseeable.
310.

Under Illinois law, Defendants had a duty to the City and its residents to exercise

due care in the marketing, sale, and/or labeling of their products and to act reasonably for theprotection of the City and its residents and to avoid inflicting the injuries described herein.
311.

Under Illinois law, Defendants also had a duty to honestly communicate theirknowledge about the hazards of their products, and a duty not to make false and misleadingstatements about the hazards of their products.
312.

Defendants also had a duty under the City’s Consumer Protection Law, as alleged

herein infra, to provide disclosures of the hazardous impacts of their products to prevent risks tohuman life and/or human health.
313.

The Chicago Consumer Protection Law acts to protect human life, and the injuries

the City and its residents have and will continue to suffer are a type of injury this law sought toprevent.
314.

Defendants had superior knowledge of the risk posed by fossil fuel products at all

times relevant to this Complaint.
160

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

315.

Defendants breached their duty of care when they advertised, promoted, and/or soldfossil fuel products and their derivatives, while failing to include warnings of the risk of harm
associated with fossil fuel products and their derivatives, in a manner that they knew or shouldhave known would result in injury to human health and safety, damage to City property andinfrastructure, loss of use of City services, and other damages to the City.
316.

Defendants further breached their duty of care by waging a years-long deceptive

marketing and public relations campaign to discredit climate science.
317.

Any warnings provided by Defendants were rendered ineffective by the years-longdeceptive marketing practices and public relations campaign which promulgated false andmisleading statements, casted doubt on the consensus of climate scientists, and advanced pseudoscientific theories.
318.

Defendants individually and in concert widely disseminated marketing materials,

refuted the scientific knowledge generally accepted at the time, advanced and promoted pseudoscientific theories of their own, and developed public relations materials that prevented reasonableconsumers from recognizing or discovering the latent risk that Defendants’ fossil fuel products
and derivatives would cause grave climate changes, undermining and rendering ineffective any
warnings that Defendants may have also disseminated.
319.

A reasonably careful company would not engage in a years-long deceptive

marketing practices and public relations campaign to promulgate such false and misleadingstatements, would not manufacture or distribute fossil fuel products and their derivatives without
warning, would warn of these products’ hazardous properties, and/or would take steps to enhance
the safety and/or reduce the risk of the products.

161

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

320.

Defendants were grossly negligent because they failed to exercise even slight care,

placing revenue and profit generation above the health and safety of humans and the environment.
321.

Defendants’ conduct was wanton, willful, and showed a reckless disregard orconscious indifference towards human health and safety, the rights of the City’s residents, City
property and infrastructure, and City services. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts
and omissions as alleged herein, the City suffered monetary losses and damages in amounts to be
proven at trial.
322.

Defendants’ conduct caused injury to the lives and health of the City’s residents,

and to the City’s property and natural resources, including by causing Climate-Related Harms,
which result in risks to human health and safety, damage to property and infrastructure, and lossof use of City services in the City.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, CITY OF CHICAGO, respectfully requests that this Court enteran Order:a.

finding that Defendants failed to warn Plaintiff about the unreasonably dangerous
conditions of the fossil fuel products and their derivatives;b.

holding Defendants jointly and severally liable for all past damages the City has
incurred, and future damages the City will incur as a result of Defendants’ conduct,
including but not limited to loss-of-use damages, the costs of enhancing
infrastructure, damage to property, any other compensatory and exemplary
damages available under Illinois law, interest on the damages according to law, andany other relief necessary to remedy climate change-related harms that the City will
face;

c.

awarding any other damages as permitted by law;162

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

d.

awarding litigation costs and attorneys’ fees permitted by law;e.

awarding pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on all monies awarded, as
permitted by law; andf.

granting such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate and just.
COUNT IV
PUBLIC NUISANCE(Against All Defendants)

323.

The City repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference each and every

allegation contained in paragraphs 1-257, as though fully set forth herein.
324.

Under Illinois law, the general public has a right to public health, public safety,

public peace, public comfort, and public convenience.
325.

The Illinois Constitution also provides the People of the State of Illinois have acommon right to a healthful environment. ILL. CONST. art. XI, § 1 (1970).
326.

Defendants, individually and in concert with each other, through their affirmative

promotion, sale, and/or distribution of their fossil fuel products and their derivatives in the City
have created, caused, contributed to, and assisted in creating Climate-Related Harms, which resultin risks to human health and safety, damage to property and infrastructure, and loss of use of City
services in the City.
327.

Defendants were substantially certain that their promotion, sale, and/or distributionof fossil fuel products and their derivatives would cause Climate-Related Harms to occur, whenthose products and derivatives were used exactly as intended.
328.

These Climate-Related Harms are injurious to health, indecent and offensive to thesenses, interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property, and constitute a substantial
and unreasonable interference with rights enjoyed by the public, including rights under Article XIof the Illinois Constitution.
163

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

329.

Defendants created, caused, contributed to, and assisted in the creation of these andother Climate-Related Harms in the City by, among other things, affirmatively promoting the saleand use of fossil fuel products and their derivatives in the City, which Defendants knew would
cause or exacerbate Climate-Related Harms, while failing to include warnings of the risk of harm
associated with fossil fuel products and their derivatives.
330.

The Climate-Related Harms obstruct and interfere with rights common to the

public, including the right guaranteed by the Illinois State Constitution to a healthful environment,
the public health, the public safety, the public peace, the public comfort, and the publicconvenience. These interferences with public rights include, among other things:a.

Extreme heat events, which increase the risk of injury or death fromdehydration, heat stroke, heart attack, and respiratory problems;b.

Frequent and severe droughts, which can result in drinking water shortages

and land subsidence due to groundwater depletion;c.

Increased smog from hotter temperatures, which damages lungs andincreases rates of childhood asthma, respiratory and heart disease, and death, and which reduces
visibility and obstructs scenic views;d.

Extreme winter storms, which cause flooding that can damage public

infrastructure, obstructing the free passage and use of property;e.

Flooding and groundwater changes, which obstruct the free passage and useof roads and property, impair water quality in groundwater aquifers, damage critical public
infrastructure, and lead to unprecedented levels of water surge into communities that can cause
injury or even death; and164

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

f.

Significant disruptions to the City’s ecosystems and biodiversity, including

the spread of invasive species.
331.

These Climate-Related Harms obstruct the public’s free use and comfortableenjoyment of property and natural resources, and an ordinary person would be reasonably annoyed
or disturbed by these Climate-Related Harms.
332.

The Climate-Related Harms caused by Defendants’ nuisance-creating conduct are

extremely grave, and far outweigh the social utility of that conduct.
333.

As a consequence of their actions, as alleged herein, Defendants have created andmaintained, and continue to create and maintain, a public nuisance at common law.
334.

Defendants’ conduct caused and will continue to cause harm to the City and its

residents many years into the future.
335.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ acts and omissions, the City

will be required to expend significant public resources to mitigate the impacts of Climate-Related
Harms throughout the City.
336.

The Climate-Related Harms are severe and greater than the City and the publicshould bear without compensation, and outweigh any utility of the Defendants’ conduct.
337.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and omissions as alleged

herein, the City has suffered monetary losses and damages in amounts to be proven at trial.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, the CITY OF CHICAGO, respectfully requests that this Court
enter an Order:a.

finding that the Defendants’ actions alleged herein constituted a common law
public nuisance;

165

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

b.

holding Defendants jointly and severally liable for all past damages the City has
incurred, and future damages the City will incur as a result of Defendants’ conduct,
including but not limited to loss-of-use damages, the costs of enhancing
infrastructure, damage to property, any other compensatory and exemplary
damages available under Illinois law, interest on the damages according to law, andany other relief necessary to remedy climate change-related harms that the City will
face;

c.

awarding any other damages as permitted by law;d.

awarding litigation costs and attorneys’ fees permitted by law;e.

awarding pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on all monies awarded, as
permitted by law; andf.

granting such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate and just.
COUNT VPRIVATE NUISANCE(Against All Defendants)

338.

The City repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference each and every

allegation contained in paragraphs 1-257, as though fully set forth herein.
339.

The Defendants’ affirmative promotion, sale, and/or distribution of their fossil fuelproducts and their derivatives in the City caused or exacerbated climate change and its impacts,
causing Climate-Related Harms, which result in risks to human health and safety, damage toproperty and infrastructure, and loss of use of City services in the City.
340.

Defendants were substantially certain that their promotion, sale, and/or distributionof fossil fuel products and their derivatives would cause Climate-Related Harms to occur, whenthose products and derivatives were used exactly as intended.

166

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

341.

Defendants created, caused, contributed to, and assisted in the creation of these andother Climate-Related Harms in the City by, among other things, affirmatively promoting the saleand use of fossil fuel products and their derivatives in the City, which Defendants knew would
cause or exacerbate Climate-Related Harms, while failing to include warnings of the risk of harm
associated with fossil fuel products and their derivatives.
342.

The City owns, leases, occupies, and manages extensive real property which has

been and will be injured by Climate-Related Harms, which result in risks to human health andsafety, damage to property and infrastructure, and loss of use of City services in the City.
343.

Defendants, by their acts and omissions, have caused, created, and contributed toconditions on the City’s properties, and permitted those conditions to persist, which substantiallyand unreasonably interfere with the City’s use and enjoyment of such property for the publicbenefit and welfare, and which materially diminishes the values of such property for its public
purposes.
344.

The City has not consented to the Defendants’ conduct in creating the substantial

and unreasonable conditions on its real property or to the associated harms of that conduct.
345.

These substantial and unreasonable conditions affecting real property include,

among other things:a.

Extreme heat events, which increase the risk of injury or death fromdehydration, heat stroke, heart attack, and respiratory problems;b.

Frequent and severe droughts, which can result in drinking water shortages

and land subsidence due to groundwater depletion;

167

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

c.

Increased smog from hotter temperatures, which damages lungs andincreases rates of childhood asthma, respiratory and heart disease, and death, and which reduces
visibility and obstructs scenic views;d.

Extreme winter storms, which cause flooding that can damage public

infrastructure, obstructing the free passage and use of property;e.

Flooding and groundwater changes, which obstruct the free passage and useof roads and property, impair water quality in groundwater aquifers, damage critical public
infrastructure, and lead to unprecedented levels of water surge into communities that can cause
injury or even death; andf.

Significant disruptions to the City’s ecosystems and biodiversity, including

the spread of invasive species.
346.

The seriousness of more frequent and extreme precipitation events, more frequentand extreme drought, increased frequency and severity of heat waves and extreme temperatures,and the associated consequences of those physical and environmental changes, is extremely grave
and outweighs the social utility of the Defendants’ conduct.
347.

An ordinary person would be reasonably annoyed or disturbed by these Climate-

Related Harms.
348.

Defendants’ conduct caused and will continue to cause harm to the City’s properties

many years into the future.
349.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ acts and omissions, the City

will be required to expend significant public resources to mitigate the impacts of Climate-Related
Harms to its properties throughout the City.

168

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

350.

The Climate-Related Harms are severe and greater than the City and the publicshould bear without compensation, and outweigh any utility of the Defendants’ conduct.
351.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and omissions as alleged

herein, the City has suffered monetary losses and damages in amounts to be proven at trial.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, the CITY OF CHICAGO, respectfully requests that this Court
enter an Order:a.

finding that the Defendants’ actions alleged herein constituted a common law
private nuisance;b.

enjoining Defendants from further acts constituting a common law private
nuisance;c.

ordering Defendants to immediately undertake the necessary action that will resultin a final and permanent abatement of the common law private nuisance;d.

holding Defendants jointly and severally liable for all past damages the City has
incurred, and future damages the City will incur as a result of Defendants’ conduct,
including but not limited to loss-of-use damages, the costs of enhancing
infrastructure, damage to property, any other compensatory and exemplary
damages available under Illinois law, interest on the damages according to law, andany other relief necessary to remedy climate change-related harms that the City will
face;

e.

awarding any other damages as permitted by law;f.

awarding litigation costs and attorneys’ fees permitted by law;g.

awarding pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on all monies awarded, as
permitted by law; and169

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

h.

granting such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate and just.
COUNT VINUISANCE VIOLATIONS OF MCC § 7-28-030(Against All Defendants)

352.

The City repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference each and every

allegation contained in paragraphs 1-257, 323-337, and 338-351 as though fully set forth herein.
353.

Under Municipal Code of Chicago (“MCC”) Chapter 7-28, nuisance offenses aredescribed in Article I titled “Nuisance in General” as follows:[T]hose offenses which are known to the common law of the land and the statutesof Illinois as nuisances may, in case the same exist within the city limits or within
one mile thereof, be treated as such, and proceeded against as is provided in thisCode, or in accordance with any other provision of law.
§ 7-28-030.
354.

As set forth in Counts IV and V above, Defendants’ conduct caused offenses which

are known to the common law of the land as nuisances within the city limits or within one mile
thereof.
355.

As a result, Defendants have violated MCC Chapter 7-28 for both public andprivate nuisances and are liable to the City for those violations.
356.

For the avoidance of doubt, the City does not seek any extraterritorial applicationof MCC § 7-28-030.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, the CITY OF CHICAGO, respectfully requests that this Court
enter an Order:a.

finding that the Defendants’ actions alleged herein constituted a nuisance inviolation of MCC § 7-28-030;b.

enjoining Defendants from further acts constituting a violation of MCC § 7-28-030;

170

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

c.

ordering Defendants to immediately undertake the necessary action that will resultin a final and permanent abatement of the violation under MCC § 7-28-030;d.

holding Defendants jointly and severally liable for all past damages the City has
incurred, and future damages the City will incur as a result of Defendants’ conduct,
including but not limited to loss-of-use damages, the costs of enhancing
infrastructure, damage to property, any other compensatory and exemplary
damages available under Illinois law, interest on the damages according to law, andany other relief necessary to remedy climate change-related harms that the City will
face;

e.

assessing Defendants fine for each violation of MCC § 7-28-030, in the amount of$500 for each offense in accordance with MCC § 7-28-800;

f.

awarding any other damages as permitted by law;g.

awarding litigation costs and attorneys’ fees permitted by law;h.

awarding pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on all monies awarded, as
permitted by law; andi.

granting such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate and just.
COUNT VII
CIVIL CONSPIRACY(Against All Defendants)

357.

The City repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference each and every

allegation contained in paragraphs 1-257, as though fully set forth herein.
358.

As alleged herein, Defendants entered into agreements with and joined organizedgroups, such as API, to promote their commercial interests in maximizing profits from their fossil
fuel products and their derivatives.

171

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

359.

In furtherance of the agreements and organized groups entered into by various

Defendants, Defendants committed the tortious acts described in Counts I-VI set forth herein.
360.

By participating in agreements and organized groups, such as API, Defendants

planned, assisted, or encouraged the tortious acts described in Counts I-VI set forth herein.
361.

The collective activities of the API and the Defendants were designed knowingly

and purposefully for API’s and Fossil Fuel Defendants’ economic and pecuniary benefit and were
performed in furtherance of API’s and Fossil Fuel Defendants’ respective and joint businessinterests, including but not limited to ensuring the public’s continued reliance on fossil fuels.
362.

API and Fossil Fuel Defendants engaged in a civil conspiracy to conceal frompotential purchasers, consumers, and users in and around the City, including the City, data andinformation demonstrating the risk that their fossil fuel products and derivatives would cause grave
climate changes.
363.

API and Fossil Fuel Defendants further conspired to mislead potential purchasers,

consumers, and users in and around the City, including the City, about such data and information
by widely disseminating marketing materials, refuting the scientific knowledge generally acceptedat the time, advancing and promoting pseudo-scientific theories of their own, and developing
public relations materials that prevented reasonable consumers from recognizing or discovering
the latent risk that Defendants’ fossil fuel products and derivatives would cause grave climatechanges.
364.

As a proximate result of Defendants’ civil conspiracy, the City suffered monetarylosses and damages in amounts to be proven at trial.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, CITY OF CHICAGO, respectfully requests that this Court enteran Order:172

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

a.

finding that Defendants failed to warn Plaintiff about the unreasonably dangerous
conditions of the fossil fuel products and their derivatives;b.

holding Defendants jointly and severally liable for all past damages the City has
incurred, and future damages the City will incur as a result of Defendants’ conduct,
including but not limited to loss-of-use damages, the costs of enhancing
infrastructure, damage to property, any other compensatory and exemplary
damages available under Illinois law, interest on the damages according to law, andany other relief necessary to remedy climate change-related harms that the City will
face;

c.

awarding any other damages as permitted by law;d.

awarding litigation costs and attorneys’ fees permitted by law;e.

awarding pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on all monies awarded, as
permitted by law; andf.

granting such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate and just.
COUNT VII
UNJUST ENRICHMENT(Against All Defendants)

365.

The City repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference each and every

allegation contained in paragraphs 1-257, as though fully set forth herein.
366.

Defendants have knowingly and unjustly retained a benefit to the City’s detriment.

367.

Defendants’ retention of the benefit violates the fundamental principles of justice,equity, and good conscience.
368.

Defendants had abundant knowledge that fossil fuel products and their derivatives

caused and continue to cause Climate-Related Harms, and actively campaigned to keep thatknowledge from becoming open and obvious.
173

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

369.

Defendants had a duty to warn consumers, the public, and users of such products

about the devastating Climate-Related Harms that they knew would flow from using their fossil
fuel products and their derivatives, yet they failed to give adequate warning.
370.

Instead, Defendants concealed from potential purchasers, consumers, and users inand around the City, including the City, data and information demonstrating the risk that theirfossil fuel products and derivatives would cause grave climate changes.
371.

Defendants also misled potential purchasers, consumers, and users in and aroundthe City, including the City, about such data and information by widely disseminating marketing
materials, refuting the scientific knowledge generally accepted at the time, advancing andpromoting pseudo-scientific theories of their own, and developing public relations materials thatprevented reasonable consumers from recognizing or discovering the latent risk that Defendants’fossil fuel products and derivatives would cause grave climate changes.
372.

Defendants’ actions caused the precise Climate-Related Harms that the fossil fuelindustry had foreseen.
373.

By engaging in these actions, Defendants have and continue to reap monetary

benefits as a direct result of Defendants’ deceptive marketing campaign to promote, inflate, andsustain the consumption of and reliance on fossil fuels that they would not have otherwise
obtained.
374.

The City suffered and continues to suffer the detriment of the Defendants’

deceptive marketing campaign as the City must now incur substantial costs to reduce and withstandthe effects of Climate-Related Harms.
375.

Unjust enrichment arises not only where an expenditure by one party adds to theproperty of another, but also where the expenditure saves the other from expense or loss.

174

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

376.

Defendants have received a benefit from the City’s response activities because

Defendants should bear the cost of reducing and withstanding the effects of Climate-Related
Harms.
377.

The City has incurred expenditures for relief over and above the City’s ordinary

services.
378.

Defendants’ enrichment was without justification and the City lacks a remedy

provided by law.
379.

Defendants’ ability to amass massive earnings by knowingly and intentionallyintroducing fossil fuels to the stream of commerce as described above without disclosing thedevastating impacts and risks posed by such products, at the City’s expense, violates thefundamental principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.
380.

Placing the financial burden of Defendants’ deceptive practices on taxpayers isagainst the fundamental principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.
381.

Under Illinois law, the principles of justice and established common law require

Defendants to reimburse the City for performing a duty properly owed by Defendants as a resultof their conduct, as alleged herein.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, CITY OF CHICAGO, respectfully requests that this Court enteran Order:a.

finding that Defendants failed to warn Plaintiff about the unreasonably dangerous
conditions of the fossil fuel products and their derivatives;b.

holding Defendants jointly and severally liable for all past damages the City has
incurred, and future damages the City will incur as a result of Defendants’ conduct,
including but not limited to loss-of-use damages, the costs of enhancing

175

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

infrastructure, damage to property, any other compensatory and exemplary
damages available under Illinois law, interest on the damages according to law, andany other relief necessary to remedy climate change-related harms that the City will
face;
c.

awarding any other damages as permitted by law;d.

awarding litigation costs and attorneys’ fees permitted by law;e.

awarding pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on all monies awarded, as
permitted by law; andf.

granting such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate and just.
COUNT IXCONSUMER FRAUD—MISLEADING, UNFAIR, AND
DECEPTIVE PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF MCC § 2-25-090(Against All Defendants)

382.

The City repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference each and every

allegation contained in paragraphs 1-257, as though fully set forth herein.
383.

Subsection 2-25-090(a) of the MCC provides that:

No person shall engage in any act of consumer fraud, unfair method of competition,or unfair or deceptive act or practice while conducting any trade or business in thecity. Any conduct constituting an unlawful act or practice under the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act . . . or any other section ofthis Code relating to business operations or consumer protection, shall be a
violation of this section. In construing this section, consideration shall be given tocourt interpretations relating to the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act, as amended. In construing this section, consideration shallalso be given to the interpretations of the Federal Trade Commission and the federal
courts relating to Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C.A.,
Section 45.
384.

The Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act makes

unlawful, among other things, “unfair or deceptive acts or practices, including but not limited tothe use or employment of any deception fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation or

176

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

the concealment, suppression or omission of any material fact, with intent that others rely upon
the concealment, suppression or omission of such material fact, or the use or employment of any
practice described in Section 2 of the ‘Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act.’” 815 ILCS 505/2.
385.

Defendants had abundant knowledge that fossil fuel products and their derivatives

caused and continue to cause Climate-Related Harms, and actively campaigned to keep thatknowledge from becoming open and obvious.
386.

Defendants are each a “person” as defined by MCC § 1-4-090(e), which includes“any natural individual, firm, trust, partnership, association, joint venture, corporation or otherlegal entity.”
387.

Defendants violated MCC § 2-25-090 by engaging in deceptive acts or practices.

Defendants also violated MCC § 2-25-090 by engaging in unfair acts or practices because
Defendants’ conduct offends public policy, is immoral, unethical, oppressive, and unscrupulous,and causes substantial injury to consumers in the City of Chicago.
388.

Specifically, Defendants violated and continue to violate MCC § 2-25-090 by:a.

Affirmatively promoting the use of fossil fuels within the City of Chicago

while knowing that fossil fuels would lead to devastating consequences on the climate, andaffirmatively misleading the public and casting doubt on climate science;b.

Marketing fossil fuels and their derivatives through misstatements andomissions of material facts in targeted and national campaigns aimed at reaching Chicago
consumers regarding: (i) the reasonably foreseeable or knowable severe risks posed by their fossil
fuel products and their derivatives; (ii) the purported environmental benefits of their fossil fuelproducts and their derivatives; (iii) the actions they have taken to reduce their carbon footprint,
invest in more renewables, or lower their fossil fuel production; and/or (iv) their purportedly

177

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

diversified energy portfolio with meaningful renewable and low-carbon fuel components. For
example, Defendants engaged in deceptive marketing and promotion of their products by, interalia, disseminating misleading marketing materials and publications refuting the scientificknowledge generally accepted at the time, advancing pseudo-scientific theories of their own, anddeveloping public relations materials that prevented reasonable consumers from recognizing therisk that fossil fuel products would cause grave climate changes, and undermining and rendering
ineffective any warnings that Defendants may have separately disseminated.
c.

Failing to include material facts regarding the risks and benefits of theirfossil fuel products and their derivatives in their advertisements and promotional materials thattargeted the City’s consumers;d.

Knowingly or recklessly disregarding the Climate-Related Harms

inherently caused by the normal use and operation of their fossil fuel products, which they were
aware of based on information passed to them from their internal research divisions and affiliates,from trade associations and industry groups, and/or from the international scientific community,and failing to disclose this information to the City’s consumers to prevent their advertising andmarketing statements from being misleading; ande.

Engaging in misleading “greenwashing” advertisements within the City of

Chicago, which deceitfully represented Defendants as leaders in renewable energy, mademisleading claims that Defendants’ businesses were substantially invested in lower carbon
technologies and renewable energy sources, and misrepresented material facts about theenvironmental impacts of their products.
389.

The MCC provides that any person “who violates any of the requirements of thissection shall be subject to a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $10,000 for each offense.

178

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

Each day that a violation continues or occurred, and each violation committed per day, shallconstitute a separate and distinct offense to which a separate fine shall apply.” MCC § 2-25-090(h).
390.

The City is entitled to fines for each day that Defendants violated MCC § 2-25-090

and for each offense that Defendants committed.
391.

The MCC also authorizes “restitution, disgorgement, equitable, injunctive,

declaratory relief, and attorney’s fees and costs” for violations of Section 2-25-090. MCC § 2-25090(g).
392.

The City is entitled to those remedies as described below.

393.

For the avoidance of doubt, the City does not seek any extraterritorial applicationof MCC § 2-25-090.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, THE CITY OF CHICAGO, respectfully requests that this Court
enter an Order:a.

finding that Defendants have violated Subsection § 2-25-090 of the MCC, by the
unlawful acts and practices alleged herein;b.

preliminarily and permanently enjoining the Defendants, their agents, employees,
and all other persons and entities, corporate or otherwise, in active concert orparticipation with any of them, from engaging in the deceptive and unfair acts andpractices alleged herein;c.

assessing Defendants a fine for each violation of MCC § 2-25-090, in the amountof $10,000 for each violation and day such violation has existed and continues toexist;d.

requiring Defendants to disgorge profits;e.

awarding litigation costs and attorneys’ fees; and179

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

f.

granting such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable and proper.
COUNT XMISREPRESENTATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH
SALE OR ADVERTISEMENT OF MERCHANDISE
IN VIOLATION OF MCC §§ 4-276-470, et seq.
(Against All Defendants)

394.

The City repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference each and every

allegation contained in paragraphs 1-257, as though fully set forth herein.
395.

MCC § 4-276-470 (“Sale or Advertisement of Merchandise Act”) prohibits making

and disseminating deceptions and misrepresentations to promote the sale and use of merchandise.
396.

Subsection § 4-276-470 of the MCC provides that it shall be a violation of thissection, among others:(1) to act, use or employ any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise or
misrepresentation, or to conceal, suppress or omit any material fact with intent that
others rely upon such concealment, suppression or omission, in connection with thesale, for cash or on credit, or advertisement of any merchandise, whether or not any
person has in fact been misled;…
(3) to represent that merchandise or services are of a particular standard, grade or
quality, or to represent that merchandise is of a particular style or model, if it isnot;…
(6) to represent that merchandise or services are those of another, when in fact
they are not;…
(10) to fail to state a material fact, if such failure tends to deceive or mislead[.]397.

Defendants are each a “person” as defined by MCC § 1-4-090(e), which includes“any natural individual, firm, trust, partnership, association, joint venture, corporation or otherlegal entity.”

180

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

398.

Defendants’ practices, as described herein, violate MCC § 4-276-470(1), (3), (6),and (10) because the practices were intended to deceive and mislead Chicago consumers inconnection with the marketing, advertisement, and sale of fossil fuels and their derivatives.
399.

Since at least as early as the 1970s, Defendants, directly, through their control ofthird parties, and by aiding and abetting third parties, have and continue to (1) make anddisseminate deceptions and misrepresentations to promote the sale and use of fossil fuels and theirderivatives, and (2) cause untrue, false, and misleading statements about the foreseeable
environmental and health risks posed by fossil fuel products and their derivatives in order topromote the sale and use of fossil fuel products and their derivatives.
400.

Defendants, collectively and individually, knew at the time of making or

disseminating these statements, or causing these statements to be made or disseminated, that suchstatements were untrue, false, or misleading, and failed to disclose material environmental andhealth risks posed by the use of fossil fuel products and their derivatives and were therefore likely
to deceive Chicago consumers.
401.

Defendants, collectively and individually, intended that their deceptive andmisrepresentative marketing and promotional efforts would create an untrue, false, and misleading
impression of the environmental and health risks resulting from the use of fossil fuel products andtheir derivatives.
402.

Defendants, collectively and individually, repeatedly and intentionally madematerial omissions and misrepresentations by failing to disclose material facts about theenvironmental and health risks of fossil fuel products and their derivatives.
403.

In omitting and misrepresenting material facts about the environmental and healthrisks with respect to the use of fossil fuel products and their derivatives, Defendants, collectively

181

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

and individually, intended to cause Chicago consumers to rely on such material omissions andmisrepresentations.
404.

Defendants, collectively and individually, were aware and are aware of themisleading nature of the misrepresentations and material omissions made in connection with thesale or advertisement of fossil fuel products and their derivatives, and yet Defendants, collectively
and individually, actively promoted dissemination of such misstatements and material omissions
in campaigns targeting and reaching Chicago consumers.
405.

Defendants engaged in, and continue to engage in, misleading acts and practices

alleged herein, with the intent to deceive Chicago consumers who used or paid for fossil fuelproducts and their derivatives.
406.

Defendants have received, or will receive, income, profits, and other benefits,

which they received as a direct result of engaging in misleading acts and practices in violation of
MCC § 4-276-470(1) and (10).
407.

The MCC provides that any person who violates “any of the provisions of Section

4-276-470 shall be fined not less than $50.00 nor more than $2,000.00 for each offense.” MCC §4-276-480.
408.

The City is entitled to fines for each violation of MCC § 4-276-470.

409.

For the avoidance of doubt, the City does not seek any extraterritorial applicationof MCC § 4-276-470.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, THE CITY OF CHICAGO, respectfully requests that this Court
enter an Order:a.

finding that Defendants have violated Subsection §§ 4-276-470, et seq. of the MCC,
by the unlawful acts and practices alleged herein;

182

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

b.

assessing Defendants a fine for each violation of MCC § 4-276-470, in the amountof $2,000 for each day such violation has existed and continues to exist; andc.

granting such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable and proper.
COUNT XIRECOVERY OF CITY COSTS OF PROVIDING SERVICESIN VIOLATION OF MCC § 1-20-020(Against All Defendants)

410.

The City repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference each and every

allegation contained in paragraphs 1-257, as though fully set forth herein.
411.

Defendants’ violations caused the City and/or its agents to incur costs in order toprotect the City and residents caused by Climate-Related Harms and are therefore liable for thecosts pursuant to the City’s Cost Recovery Ordinance of the MCC. MCC §§ 1-20-020, et seq.
412.

Section 1-20-020 of the MCC provides:

Any person who causes the city or its agents to incur costs in order to provide
services reasonably related to such person’s violation of any . . . state or local law,or such person’s failure to correct conditions which violate any . . . state or local
law when such person was under a legal duty to do so, shall be liable to the city for
those costs. This liability shall be collectible in the same manner as any otherpersonal liability.
413.

Defendants committed the violations of state and local law described in Counts I

through X. For the avoidance of doubt, the City does not allege any violation of federal law.
414.

These violations have caused and will continue to cause the City to incur costs

reasonably related to these violations of law.
415.

These costs include the costs of all past damages the City has incurred, and futuredamages the City will incur, as a result of Defendants’ conduct, including responding to andremedying Climate-Related Harms, such as the costs of enhancing infrastructure and property
damage costs.

183

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

416.

For the avoidance of doubt, the City does not seek any extraterritorial applicationof MCC § 1-20-020.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, CITY OF CHICAGO, respectfully requests that this Court enteran Order:a.

holding Defendants jointly and severally liable for any costs incurred by the City
in response to all unlawful conduct described in Counts I-X in an amount to be
proven at trial;b.

litigation costs and attorneys’ fees permitted by MCC § 1-20-060;c.

pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on all monies awarded, as permitted bylaw; andd.

granting such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate and just.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, in addition to the relief requested in each individual Cause of Action listed
above, Plaintiff, CITY OF CHICAGO, seeks judgment in its favor and against Defendants for:A.

Compensatory damages in an amount according to proof;

B.

Equitable relief, including abatement of the nuisances complained of herein;

C.

Penalties and recovery for injury or loss sustained as the result of a practiceprohibited by the Chicago Consumer Protection Act and other provisions of the
Chicago Municipal Code as alleged herein;D.

Disgorgement of profits;E.

Costs (including reasonable attorney fees, court costs, and other expenses of
litigation);F.

Pre-judgment interest; andG.

Any other and further relief as the Court deems just, proper, and equitable.
184

FILED DATE: 2/20/2024 12:34 PM 2024CH01024

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all claims so triable.
Date: February 20, 2024

Respectfully submitted,
Mary R. Richardson-Lowry
Corporation Counsel of the City of Chicago
By:/s/Stephen J. Kane
Stephen J. Kane

Rebecca A. Hirsch
Chelsey Metcalf
CITY OF CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF LAWAFFIRMATIVE LITIGATION DIVISION
121 North LaSalle Street, Room 600
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Tel: (312) 744-6934
stephen.kane@cityofchicago.org
rebecca.hirsch2@cityofchicago.org
chelsey.metcalf@cityofchicago.org
Adam J. Levitt
Daniel Rock Flynn
Anna Claire Skinner*
Anna C. Laird*
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Tel: (312) 214-7900
alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
dflynn@dicellolevitt.com
askinner@dicellolevitt.com
alaird@dicellolevitt.com
Victor M. Sher*Matthew K. Edling*
Paul Stephan*
SHER EDLING LLP
100 Montgomery Street, Suite 1410
San Fracisco, California 94104
Tel: (628) 231-2500
vic@sheredling.com
matt@sheredling.com
paul@sheredling.com*Motions for admission pro hac vice to be filed
185