Michigan Sues Big Oil For Antitrust Violations

Support CleanTechnica’s work through a Substack subscription or on Stripe.

Or support our Kickstarter campaign!

On January 30, 2026, the state of Michigan filed suit against several major fossil fuel companies — including ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, and Shell — as well as the American Petroleum Institute. Your first reaction might be that this is more “same old, same old” blathering about knowing their business activities were harming the environment and making the world hotter and doing nothing about it, but you would be wrong. Not to flog a dead horse, but the courts clearly have no intention of getting sucked into that quagmire.

Instead, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel has decided to go in a different direction. According to The Hill, the suit says the defendants acted together as a cartel to reduce production and distribution of renewable energy and restrain electric vehicles.

“To achieve this end, they have abandoned renewable energy projects, used patent litigation to hinder rivals, suppressed information concerning the hidden costs of fossil fuels and viability of alternatives, infiltrated and knowingly misdirected information-producing institutions, surveilled and intimidated watchdogs and public officials, and used trade associations to coordinate market-wide efforts to divert capital expenditures away from renewable energy — all to further one of the most successful antitrust conspiracies in United States history,” the suit claims.

The Affordability Issue

Nessel told the press, “Michigan is facing an energy affordability crisis as our home energy costs skyrocket and consumers are left without affordable options for transportation. These out of control costs are not the result of natural economic inflation, but due to the greed of these corporations who prioritized their own profit and marketplace dominance over competition and consumer savings.”

Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., an attorney for Chevron, claimed the allegations are baseless and have already been dismissed in other states. “Federal and state courts have dismissed lawsuits seeking climate-related damages in Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and South Carolina. This lawsuit also ignores the fact that Michigan is highly dependent on oil and gas to support the state’s automakers and workers.” Elise Otten, a spokesperson for Exxon, added, “This is yet another legally incoherent effort to regulate by lawsuit. It won’t reduce emissions, it won’t help consumers, and it won’t stand up to the law.”

Boutrous misconstrues the Michigan suit, which is not claiming damages for harm to the environment but rather for colluding to keep the price of electric vehicles and renewable energy higher than they would be if the companies hadn’t worked together to inflate prices — a classic antitrust argument. But he comes close to making a valid point when he talks about the auto industry in Michigan.

Many US automakers have conspired to only offer the biggest and most expensive vehicles. The proof is in how GM, Ford, and Stellantis all decided at virtually the same moment to end production of sedans, claiming no Americans wanted to buy them. Meanwhile, Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, and Kia continue to offer sedans and small cars like the Kia Soul. Clearly, someone is working overtime to deceive the buying public.

The New York Times notes the Michigan suit comes at a time when inflation and affordability are growing concerns for many Americans. It notes that over the past decade, more than three dozen state and local governments have filed lawsuits against oil companies, seeking damages for the effects of climate change or citing consumer protection laws, mostly in state courts. Only one other suit has made antitrust claims, but it took a different approach than Michigan did. That lawsuit was dismissed and an appeal is pending.

Michigan’s filing came despite significant opposition from the administration, which argued such lawsuits were an attack on a critical industry — part of the bogus “energy emergency” claim it has been pedaling since its first day in office.  In April, the Justice Department sued Michigan and Hawai’i in an effort to block them from filing climate lawsuits. On January 30, 2026 Judge Jane Beckering dismissed the suit against Michigan, ruling it was too speculative for the court to consider.

A Coordinated Campaign

Ryan Meyers, senior vice president and general counsel for API, told the New York Times the Michigan and Hawai’i lawsuits are a “coordinated campaign against an industry that powers everyday life, drives America’s economy, and is actively reducing emissions.” He said the group’s position was that energy policy should be set in Congress, not in “a patchwork of courtrooms.”

He is partially correct. Congress is where such policy matters should be thrashed out. The problem is that it is under the control of Republicans who absolutely refuse to do their sworn duty to the American people because they are owned, literally and figuratively, by Big Oil and apologists such as API.

Rachel Rothschild, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School who has contributed to climate litigation, said the framing of the new lawsuit by the state attorney general was probably a reflection of local concerns about the cost of living. “She’s representing people in a state that is purple. I think the citizens of Michigan are very concerned about their energy costs, and framing this lawsuit as being about those energy costs, from a political perspective and speaking to the people of Michigan, it’s going to resonate more with the people of this state.”

The Supreme Court May Shield Big Oil

The industry and its allies are asking the Supreme Court to turn thumbs down on climate lawsuits, even though it has refused on several occasions to interfere with legal actions brought in state courts. But the claim by Michigan about conspiring to suppress EVs and renewable energy may be sufficiently different from other similar suits to survive. Other lawsuits that argue the oil companies engaged in disinformation campaigns designed to hide the risks of climate change from the public may also survive, the Times says.

David Uhlmann, a lawyer and former federal environmental official who represented Michigan in the lawsuit brought by the Justice Department, said a central issue is the tension between federal and state governments. The administration’s ham handed attempt to block the Michigan lawsuit and others like it runs counter to the conservative tradition of supporting states’ rights. “For the longest time, Republicans have argued that the federal government should be deferring to states and not encroaching on state sovereignty. Now we have the Trump administration that’s attacking states and trying to limit their authority.”

There are other plans afoot to block such litigation. Last June, several attorneys general in Republican dominated states urged the Justice Department to push Congress for a “liability shield” for the industry, similar to the one that protects gun manufacturers from lawsuits. In a recent congressional lobbying report, API said it was working on “draft legislation related to state efforts to impose liability on the oil and gas industry.”

Lawmakers in Utah and Ohio have introduced bills that would protect energy companies from liability for emissions. The proposals closely follow model legislation drafted by an advocacy group linked to the conservative activist Leonard Leo. If you are not familiar with Leo, you should know that he is personally responsible for the nominations of Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett to the US Supreme Court.

His work for conservative causes has made Leo a very wealthy man. Such is the state of things in America today. If you promote the interests of the most powerful corporations and institutions, you are paid handsomely. If not, you struggle in obscurity.

The Michigan lawsuit is not quite a Hail Mary play, but it is close to one. The truth is, little will change so long as a majority of members of Congress shirk their obligations and devote every waking moment to currying favor with wealthy donors instead of seeing to the interests of their constituents. That may change during the midterm election later this year, but there are already plans afoot to cancel free and fair elections in the US. It is heartening that Michigan is waging the good fight, but whether its lawsuit will achieve its desired ends is far from certain.