Only one clear climate change settlement was reached in 2025, and it concerned greenwashing rather than climate damages: Tyson Foods agreed in November to stop marketing beef as “climate smart” or “climate friendly” without independent verification. No oil or gas company has yet been forced to pay liability for climate change damages, and no major lawsuit against a fossil fuel producer settled or reached a verdict during the year.1Zero Carbon Analytics. Latest Trends in Climate Litigation Against Fossil Fuel Companies Instead, 2025 was defined by state laws trying to force polluters to pay, federal lawsuits trying to stop those laws, and a set of landmark rulings that closed some cases without any money changing hands.
The Tyson Foods Greenwashing Settlement
The one clear climate-related settlement of the year was resolved on November 13, 2025 in D.C. Superior Court. The Environmental Working Group had alleged that Tyson Foods violated the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act with misleading claims about a “Climate-Smart Beef Program” and net-zero emissions goals.2Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. Climate Litigation Updates
Under the agreement, Tyson will not repeat such claims unless verified by a mutually agreed-upon expert, and will not market beef as “climate smart” or “climate friendly” in the United States until verification is complete. Those restrictions run for five years. The financial terms were sealed in a confidential addendum.2Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. Climate Litigation Updates
A separate class action against Delta Air Lines, alleging the airline falsely marketed itself as “carbon neutral” based on questionable carbon offsets, continued in a California federal court after surviving a partial motion to dismiss in 2024. It did not settle in 2025.3Norton Rose Fulbright. Climate Change Litigation Update
The Big Fossil Fuel Cases That Did Not Settle
Several of the highest-profile lawsuits against oil and gas companies advanced in 2025 without resolution.
Honolulu v. Sunoco
Honolulu’s 2020 case against eight fossil fuel companies cleared a major hurdle in January 2025 when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the oil companies’ appeal, allowing the case to proceed in state court.4Reuters. U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Bid by Oil Companies to Toss Honolulu’s Climate Suit In July, a Hawaii state judge heard arguments on a statute-of-limitations motion to dismiss but did not immediately rule. The suit alleges the companies deceived the public for decades about the climate risks of fossil fuels, causing property and infrastructure damage from sea-level rise.5Honolulu Civil Beat. Honolulu Leads Climate Change Legal Fight Against Fossil Fuel Companies
Multnomah County v. Exxon Mobil
Multnomah County, Oregon’s lawsuit blaming 25 fossil fuel companies for the deadly 2021 Pacific Northwest heat dome, and seeking $51 to $52 billion, stayed in the pre-trial phase all year. Defendants had until October 2025 to submit rebuttals to the county’s responses to their briefs.6OPB. Multnomah County Lawsuit Against Big Oil Faces Trump Delays In October, the Oregon Circuit Court denied a Chevron motion to strike references to two climate studies, though the judge said the studies would “carry absolutely no weight” in the case after the county’s lead counsel failed to disclose his support for the research.7Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. Climate Litigation Updates
California’s Coordinated Cases
Dozens of California climate lawsuits filed by local governments and the state attorney general have been consolidated in San Francisco Superior Court since February 2024. Attorney General Rob Bonta’s September 2023 complaint against 13 fossil fuel companies and the American Petroleum Institute alleges decades of public deception and seeks an abatement fund, civil penalties, and punitive damages. In late 2024, the court denied Chevron’s attempt to strike claims under California’s anti-SLAPP law.8Climate Case Chart. Fuel Industry Climate Cases No settlement or trial verdict emerged in 2025.
A New Angle: Insurance Premiums
A novel class action filed in November 2025, Kennedy v. Exxon Mobil Corp., linked fossil fuel deception directly to rising homeowner’s insurance costs. Two Washington state homeowners sued ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, BP, ConocoPhillips, and the American Petroleum Institute, alleging a coordinated campaign to hide the truth about climate change that drove up insurance premiums nationwide.9InsideClimate News. Washington Homeowners Sue Oil Companies Over Insurance Rates The complaint includes federal RICO claims and seeks to represent a nationwide class of anyone who purchased homeowner’s insurance after 2017.10Center for Climate Integrity. Kennedy v. Exxon Mobil Corp. Class Action Complaint The case is in its earliest stages, with no class certification yet.
Cases That Ended in 2025 Without Money Changing Hands
Two of the most-watched climate cases in the world closed in 2025, neither with a settlement.
Juliana v. United States
The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in Juliana v. United States on March 24, 2025, ending the decade-long federal case in which 21 young people had argued the government violated their constitutional rights by promoting fossil fuels.11The New York Times. Supreme Court Declines to Hear Children’s Climate Lawsuit Fifteen plaintiffs filed a petition with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in September 2025.12Our Children’s Trust. Juliana v. United States
Lliuya v. RWE
The closely watched case brought by Peruvian farmer Saúl Luciano Lliuya against German energy giant RWE also ended in 2025. Following a two-day expert hearing in March, the Higher Regional Court of Hamm dismissed the claim on May 28, 2025, with no further appeal allowed. The court found the probability of a catastrophic glacial lake outburst flood reaching Lliuya’s home within 30 years was approximately one percent, insufficient to establish imminent danger.13European Association of Private International Law. The Regional Court of Hamm Rules on Lliuya v. RWE: A Relative Defeat
Even so, the ruling affirmed that companies responsible for large-scale emissions can be held liable under German civil law for climate-related harms they contribute to, rejected the argument that lawful emissions provide blanket immunity, and acknowledged that RWE’s estimated 0.38 percent share of global industrial emissions was “causally relevant.”14Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. What Lliuya v. RWE Means for Climate Change Loss and Damage Claims Lliuya lost, but the legal framework that made his case a global reference point survived.
Climate Superfund Laws: The States Try a Different Route
Because settlements have not materialized, states have tried to force fossil fuel companies to pay through legislation. Two of those laws became the central legal fights of 2025.
New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act
Signed by Governor Kathy Hochul on December 26, 2024, and amended on February 28, 2025, the New York law aims to collect $75 billion over 25 years from fossil fuel producers and refiners responsible for more than one billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions between 2000 and 2024. Funds are earmarked for drainage systems, coastal restoration, electrical grid resilience, and bridge repairs, with 35 percent directed to disadvantaged communities.15Vinson & Elkins LLP. New York Passes Climate Superfund Legislation
Three separate legal challenges followed. On February 6, 2025, a coalition of 22 states led by West Virginia and four industry groups sued to block the law. Three weeks later, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute filed a second lawsuit, arguing the law is preempted by the Clean Air Act, violates due process through retroactive liability, and runs afoul of the Commerce Clause.15Vinson & Elkins LLP. New York Passes Climate Superfund Legislation The Department of Justice sued New York directly on May 1, 2025, calling the law a “transparent monetary-extraction scheme,” and filed for summary judgment on August 29.16U.S. Department of Justice. Justice Department Files Motion for Summary Judgment in Challenge to New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act
As of mid-2026, Judge P. Kevin Castel in the Southern District of New York is considering cross-motions for summary judgment. The consolidated cases in the Northern District, combined in October 2025, also remain active, with briefing completed in April 2026.17Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. United States v. State of New York18NRDC. Climate Superfund Laws Defense Cases
Vermont’s Climate Superfund Act
Vermont’s law, in effect since May 2024, targets companies that extracted or refined more than a billion metric tons of fossil fuels between 1995 and 2024. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute filed the first challenge in December 2024. In May 2025, attorneys general from 24 states joined that lawsuit, and the DOJ filed a separate challenge that same month.19NFIB. Another Vermont Climate Law Ends Up in Court
Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark filed a motion to dismiss in August 2025 and a cross-motion for summary judgment in November. Oral arguments took place in March 2026.20State Impact Center. Vermont AG Defended State’s Climate Superfund Act Implementation, meanwhile, has stalled; state officials requested $1.5 million in extra funding, two new staff positions, and a deadline extension to 2027.21Vermont General Assembly. Feasibility Report on Act 122
Similar Bills in Other States
At least ten states introduced climate superfund legislation in 2025.22NCEL. Polluters Pay: How States Are Filling the Federal Climate Funding Gap California’s SB 684 died in early 2026.23Digital Democracy. SB 684 – Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Act Connecticut’s HB 6280 never received a hearing.24Third Act. Make Polluters Pay State Round Up Maryland overrode a gubernatorial veto in December 2025 to pass a scaled-back study bill, directing research into the cost of greenhouse gas emissions rather than directly assessing fees.25Maryland General Assembly. SB0149 – Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation New Jersey’s bill stalled short of a full vote.
The Federal Pushback
The reason so little settled in 2025 has a lot to do with a coordinated federal effort to block state climate actions. On April 8, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Protecting American Energy from State Overreach,” directing Attorney General Pam Bondi to identify and “expeditiously take all appropriate action to stop” state and local laws, regulations, and civil lawsuits related to climate change, ESG, carbon emissions, and environmental justice.26The White House. Protecting American Energy From State Overreach The order specifically named the New York and Vermont superfund laws, California’s cap-and-trade program, and state-level nuisance or tort suits against energy companies.27Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. New Executive Order Tees Up Challenges to State and Local Climate Laws
The DOJ also sued Hawaii on May 1, 2025, seeking to preemptively block Hawaii’s pending climate litigation against fossil fuel companies. Hawaii Attorney General Anne Lopez called it a “direct attack on Hawaiʻi’s rights as a sovereign state.”28CNN. Trump Administration Sues States Over Climate Lawsuits In April 2026, Senior Judge Helen Gillmor dismissed the federal complaint with prejudice, a significant defeat for that strategy.29Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. United States v. State of Hawaii
The Bigger Picture on Climate Damages
As of June 30, 2025, the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law and the UN Environment Programme counted 3,099 cumulative climate-related cases across 55 national jurisdictions and 24 international bodies, up from 2,180 in 2022 and 884 in 2017.30Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. Sabin Center and UNEP Release New Climate Litigation Report Sixty-eight lawsuits globally seek financial compensation for climate damages; 63 percent remain active. Among concluded compensation cases, 44 percent were successful and 8 percent settled, though most successful outcomes involved deforestation cases in Indonesia rather than fossil fuel emissions.31Zero Carbon Analytics. Companies Face Financial Risks From Growing Climate Damage Litigation
No oil or gas company has yet been required to pay liability specifically for climate change damages.1Zero Carbon Analytics. Latest Trends in Climate Litigation Against Fossil Fuel Companies Anyone searching for a 2025 climate settlement against a fossil fuel major will not find one. The pressure is real and growing, but the money, so far, has not moved.