Judge denies motion to dismiss Minnesota climate lawsuit

Listen to this article

MINNEAPOLIS, MN — A Ramsey County judge recently ruled that Minnesota’s lawsuit alleging major oil and gas companies misled Minnesotans about climate change can move forward. Originally filed in 2020, the case inches closer to trial, defeating defendants’ efforts to get the case dismissed.

In June 2020, Attorney General Keith Ellison filed suit against ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute, Koch Industries and Koch subsidiary Flint Hills Resources, alleging the companies systemically deceived Minnesotans over decades about the causes and costs of climate change. In the complaint, Ellison alleged these companies knew in the 1970s that their products would harm the climate but chose to engage in a PR campaign that misled the public about the consequences of using their products.

The complaint asserted violations of Minnesota’s consumer-protection statutes, failure to warn, fraud, and misrepresentation. Minnesota sought an injunction barring violation of the laws, restitution, and for the companies to fund a corrective public education campaign on climate change.

“When corporations and trade associations break the law and hurt Minnesotans, it’s my job and my duty to hold them accountable,” Ellison said at the time. “The fraud, deceptive advertising, and other violations of Minnesota state law and common law that the lawsuit shows they perpetrated have harmed Minnesotans’ health and our state’s environment, infrastructure, and economy.”

Since the lawsuit was filed, the case has moved around a bit. Originally filed in state court, the lawsuit was removed to federal court. However, the federal district court remanded the lawsuit to state court. Then, defendants appealed to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In March 2023, the 8th Circuit, citing decisions by sister circuits regarding jurisdiction in climate change litigation, denied the appeal. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the defendants’ appeal of the 8th Circuit’s decision in January 2024. The case has been in state court since that time.

Judge Reynaldo Aligada Jr., of the 2nd Judicial District, heard oral arguments on this matter in November 2024. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. They also contended that the suit was barred by Minnesota’s anti-SLAPP statute, which protected from civil liability speech that is directed toward procuring favorable government action. Aligada did dismiss one count of the suit regarding the Consumer Fraud Act (MCFA), finding that the state did not sufficiently plead the MCFA claim that the allegedly false statements were made “in connection with the sale of any merchandise.” Although Aligada agreed that fossil fuels constitute merchandise, and that these statements were made to consumers, he pointed to the statutory language and determined that “more specificity as to the sale must be alleged.”

“The Complaint identifies no specific consumer or consumers who purchased merchandise or were the recipient of an ‘offer for sale’ or an ‘attempt to sell,’” Aligada wrote. “Further, because no specific ‘sale’ is identified in the Complaint, there is no substantive allegation of the “connection” between the Defendants’ alleged statements and any sale.”

However, the court rejected all of the other defense arguments. The defendants argued that the claims were preempted by federal law, but Aligada was not persuaded. Aligada also did not agree that the claims were time-barred. Moreover, Aligada found that the state had sufficiently pleaded its claims regarding common-law fraud, conspiracy, failure to warn, fraud by omission, misrepresentation, and reliance.

Aligada also found that the suit was not barred under Minnesota’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute, which was recently repealed by the Legislature and replaced with the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act. While the parties agreed that the Legislature preserved the ability to bring a motion under the repealed statute if asserted prior to the effective date of the statute’s replacement, Aligada concluded that the former statute did not expressly name the attorney general or state as a responding party against whom the motion could be asserted.

“The Court also agrees with the State that the public policy interests underlying the anti-SLAPP statute weigh against its use in an enforcement action brought by the Attorney General,” Aligada stated.

Ellison, in a statement after the court’s ruling, said, “These defendants prioritized their profits over the people of Minnesota, and deception was their business model. The court’s thorough analysis and well-reasoned order puts us one step closer to proving that in court.”

American Petroleum Institute General Counsel Ryan Meyers, in a statement emailed to Minnesota Lawyer, wrote, “This ongoing, coordinated campaign to wage meritless lawsuits against companies providing affordable, reliable and cleaner energy is nothing more than a distraction from these important issues and waste of taxpayer resources. We’re disappointed that the judge declined the opportunity to follow multiple other state courts that have dismissed similar misguided suits. But ultimately, climate policy is an issue for Congress to debate, not the court system.”

Jake Reint, Flint Hills Resources’ vice president for public affairs, wrote in an email, “While we are disappointed in the court’s ruling, we remain confident that the allegations in this lawsuit are unfounded. At this stage of the case, courts must assume the facts a plaintiff alleges are ‘true,’ even if they are false and misleading. We will continue to vigorously defend ourselves.

“It’s important for Minnesotans to know that this lawsuit is part of a broader effort by out-of-state interests to use the courts to impose a radical global energy policy that could raise costs for families and businesses. If successful, this litigation risks undermining economic growth and jeopardizing the reliability of essential fuels.”

In total, 11 state attorneys general—and dozens of city, county, and tribal governments—have filed lawsuits aiming for courts to find that the companies deceived the public about the effects of their products on climate change.