Insights

On August 8, 2025, the Attorneys General of 23 Republican-led U.S. states (the “AGs”) sent a letter to Science Based Targets Initiative (“SBTi”), a U.K. non-profit climate organization, expressing concern with the SBTi’s climate initiatives.[1]SBTi had previously received a subpoena from Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier in connection with his office’s investigation into what he described as a “climate cartel,” which he alleges includes SBTi and CDP (formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project).[2]

In 2023, California passed two landmark laws—SB 253, the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act; and SB 261, the Climate-Related Financial Risk Act—that will require large public and privately-held entities doing business in California to comply with sweeping disclosure requirements regarding their direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions and their climate-related financial risks. California subsequently passed SB 219, which updated certain deadlines and requirements of the laws (collectively, the “Climate Disclosure Laws”).

Following the February announcement of the Omnibus package, the European Commission, Council, and Parliament have made several decisions indicating ways in which EU ESG laws are likely to be streamlined. This alert provides a high-level summary of the most significant proposed changes to existing and draft ESG legislation.

Mandatory climate disclosures for US federal contractors are officially off the table—at least, for the foreseeable future.  On January 10, 2025, the Department of Defense, General Services Administration, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration announced that they are withdrawing a proposed rule, “Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate-Related Financial Risk,” which would have required thousands of federal contractors to inventory and publicly disclose their Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and would also have required  “major” contractors to also establish and validate GHG emission-reduction targets tailored to the goals of the Paris Agreement.  The proposed rule, discussed in further detail here, was introduced in November 2022 and resulted in thousands of public comments from the government contractor community and beyond. 

On November 27, 2024, a group of eleven state attorneys general (the “AGs”) sued three of the world’s largest asset managers (the “Asset Managers”), accusing them of anticompetitive stock acquisitions, deceptive asset management practices, and an antitrust conspiracy to restrict coal output. The states seek declaratory and injunctive relief including divestitures, as well as fines under state laws, although the allegations could provide a basis for follow-on private treble damages claims under the antitrust laws.

On November 8, 2024 the SEC announced a settled enforcement action against Invesco Advisers, Inc. for making misleading statements about its integration of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors into the firm’s investment decisions. Invesco agreed to pay a $17.5 million civil penalty to settle the matter. This enforcement action makes it clear that, even though the SEC dissolved its ESG Task Force, the Commission continues to monitor firms’ statements and representations for misleading statements about ESG.

On September 10, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) announced a settlement with Keurig Dr Pepper Inc (“Keurig”).  The SEC alleged that Keurig made incomplete and inaccurate statements in the Company’s annual reports for fiscal years 2019 and 2020 touting the recyclability of its K-Cup products. Keurig agreed to pay a $1.5 million civil penalty. 

The EU Institutions are in the process of agreeing new rules to further prevent greenwashing.  On 17 June 2024, the Council adopted its general approach to the proposed Green Claims Directive (“GCD”). The GCD is focused primarily on how companies would need to substantiate and verify green claims which are potentially permissible in the EU.  It complements the Directive on Empowering Consumers of the Green Transition (“ECGT Directive”) which entered into force in March 2024.  That Directive focuses primarily on blacklisting and prohibiting certain greenwashing practices. Together these two Directives will create a single regulatory framework concerning environmental, and to some extent, social claims.       

Making claims about carbon reductions or “carbon neutrality” may seem an attractive way to distinguish a company for its sustainability work, but such claims are becoming riskier to make. The last several years have seen a significant increase in litigation and regulatory requirements regarding such claims in the European Union, United Kingdom, United States and beyond.  Continuing that trend, on 27 June 2024, the German Federal Court of Justice handed down a Judgment in a case concerning environmental claims.  It is likely to have significant ramifications – particularly for companies making climate-related or carbon/greenhouse gas/emission – related claims in Germany.  This German case is just one example of why any company considering such claims should carefully examine the regulatory, enforcement and litigation landscape in all relevant jurisdictions, while also being sure to carefully construct and substantiate the claims.  

On March 6, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) voted to finalize a rule that requires regulated issuers to disclose information regarding their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and other climate-related information. First proposed in 2022, the final rule has been scaled back in some significant ways from what was initially proposed. Notably, the final rule requires only large accelerated filers and non-exempted accelerated filers to disclose direct and energy-related (Scope 1 and 2)[1] GHGs—and only if such emissions are material to the business strategy, results of operations, or financial condition of a registrant—with no Scope 3 requirement to report on other indirect emissions (Scope 3). By comparison, the proposed rule would also have required Scope 1 and 2 emissions disclosures for all types of regulated entities regardless of materiality, and Scope 3 disclosures required of certain filers if material. The final rule reflects a heightened focus on materiality regarding disclosures of climate-related risks, and adjusts assurance requirements. It also extends the timing of GHG reporting, when required, to at least 2026 (for FY 2025 data) and phases in the assurance requirements. As soon as the SEC voted to finalize the rule, ten states (West Virginia, Georgia, Alabama, Alaska, Indiana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Virginia, and Wyoming) filed a petition for review in the Eleventh Circuit challenging the final rule.

Europe’s biggest online fashion retailer, Zalando, recently agreed to dramatically and rapidly overhaul its sustainability marketing in the face of pressure by the European Commission. This is yet another example of why companies need to be extremely careful when making environmental claims in their advertising. Such claims are facing increasing regulatory scrutiny and activist litigation in the European Union, the United Kingdom, the United States and elsewhere around the globe.