“The distance is to great between the alleged conspiracy and Michigan’s and its residents’ overcharges to find that the conspiracy proximately caused the overcharges,” Beckering said.
A federal judge has dismissed Michigan’s first-of-its-kind antitrust lawsuit against the oil and gas industry.
According to The New York Times, the lawsuit was filed in January by state Attorney General Dana Nessel. In it, Nessel accused a coalition of fossil fuel companies of creating a “cartel” by raising energy costs and working to suppress the development of renewable energy.
“The Attorney General alleges the defendants acted as a cartel in an unlawful conspiracy in restraint of trade to forestall meaningful competition from renewable energy in order to maintain their dominance in the transportation energy market and primary energy markets in Michigan and nationally in order to reap windfall, and illegal, profits,” Nessel’s office said online. “This has caused Michigan residents to suffer artificially high home and transportation energy costs. Michigan consumers remain locked in transportation and energy markets that rely on outdated and expensive technologies, and lack renewable, cost-efficient energy sources because defendants have illegally conspired to suppress the conditions for their deployment and adoption, eliminating consumer choice and worsening the energy affordability crisis facing the people of Michigan.”
Nessel also accused the defendants of covering up the far-ranging risks of global warming.
But, in a decision issued earlier today, U.S. District Judge Jane M. Beckering found that Michigan lacks a legal basis under federal antitrust law “to seek any relief requested” in the lawsuit. The only potential claim that the state could advance, Beckering said, relates to potential energy overcharges for Michigan residents. And, even then, the judge determined there was too little evidence of conspiracy to move the lawsuit forward.
“The distance is to great between the alleged conspiracy and Michigan’s and its residents’ overcharges to find that the conspiracy proximately caused the overcharges,” Beckering said.
The lawsuit named defendants including BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, and the American Petroleum Institute, the latter of which is an industry trade group.
“Michigan’s lawsuit was part of a coordinated campaign against an industry that is vital to everyday life and serves as the engine of America’s economy,” API general counsel Ryan Meyers said in a statement. “Climate policy is a federal, not state, issue, and we are pleased with the court’s decision.”
Theodore J. Boutrous, a lawyer for Chevron, said in a separate statement that the ruling can be added to “a growing list” of courts that have dismissed climate change-related litigation.
“These climate suits are baseless no matter plaintiffs’ attempts to concoct new litigation theories, like these meritless antitrust claims,” Boutrous said.
Sources
Judge Dismisses Unusual Climate Suit Claiming Oil Giants Broke Antitrust Law
Michigan’s Lawsuit Against Fossil Fuel Defendants for Violations of Antitrust Laws
US judge dismisses Michigan climate lawsuit against oil companies
Join the conversation!