ExxonMobil Takes California To Court Over “Compelled” Climate Speech

ExxonMobil Corp. has filed a lawsuit aimed at stopping California from enforcing two new climate-reporting laws, according to Yahoo/Bloomberg. 

The company argues the state isn’t just demanding data — it’s trying to conscript corporations into a particular climate narrative. According to the complaint, the laws force the company to “publicly endorse opinions about climate change that it does not agree with,” which ExxonMobil says crosses a clear First Amendment line.

Yahoo/Bloomberg writes that the first law requires companies with more than $1 billion in annual revenue to calculate and disclose their greenhouse-gas emissions every year. The second targets firms with over $500 million in revenue, requiring a report every two years describing how climate change could affect financial performance and what the company is doing to address those risks.

ExxonMobil says California’s approach singles out large corporations because the state believes they are “most responsible” for climate change — a premise the company rejects. The suit claims the real strategy is to “embarrass” companies into changing operations and to regulate corporate behavior and speech far beyond California’s borders.

The filing insists the company isn’t denying reality, stating: “ExxonMobil understands the very real risks associated with climate change and supports continued efforts to address those risks.” However, it continues: “California may believe that companies that meet the statutes’ revenue thresholds are uniquely responsible for climate change; but the First Amendment categorically bars it from forcing ExxonMobil to speak in service of that misguided viewpoint.”

On top of the free-speech argument, ExxonMobil says at least one of the new rules, SB 261, conflicts with federal securities regulations that already dictate what publicly traded companies must disclose about environmental and financial risk. Because those issues fall under the jurisdiction of federal law, the company contends California can’t pile on additional — or inconsistent — mandates.

The lawsuit asks a judge to declare both laws unconstitutional and preempted by federal authority, setting up a clash over how far states can go in forcing companies to talk about climate change.