TotalEnergies Ruling Signals Rising Legal Risk for Climate Claims and ESG Messaging

In a judgment dated October 23, 2025[1],the 34^th Chamber of the Paris Judicial Court – specialized in corporate social responsibility (CSR) litigation – ruled that certain communications by TotalEnergies relating to its climate strategy amounted to misleading commercial practices.

 

The Court found that several environmental claims were liable to mislead consumers. By sanctioning the discrepancy between the company’s climate-related representations and its ongoing fossil fuel investments, this decision reflects a growing trend towards heightened legal scrutiny of environmental claims.

  

I. Reclassifying environmental communications as misleading commercial practices

  

A/ Factual and procedural background

  

In 2021, the "Total” group changed its corporate name to "TotalEnergies”, bolstered by a large-scale communications campaign positioning the group as a major player in the energy transition. As part of this approach, TotalEnergies rolled out a so-called "multi-energy” model, emphasizing the development of renewable energy.

 

Claims such as "ambition to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050” and "major player in the energy transition” drew scrutiny from environmental advocacy organizations.

 

In March 2022, Greenpeace France, together with the environmental NGOs Notre Affaire à Tous, and Les Amis de la Terre France jointly brought proceedings before the Paris Judicial Court, alleging that TotalEnergies’ communications campaign amounted to greenwashing. The plaintiffs argued that the group disseminated misleading claims regarding its climate commitments and the alleged environmental benefits of fossil gas and agrofuels, whereas its industrial strategy remained fundamentally centered on fossil fuel extraction.

 

Under Article L.121-1 of the French Consumer Code, a misleading commercial practice includes any communication (advertising, marketing, website content) likely to mislead consumers. This offense encompasses both false claims and the omission of material information and is assessed objectively.

 

The key legal question was therefore whether TotalEnergies’ climate-related representations –  although framed as part of its broader corporate strategy – could nonetheless qualify as misleading commercial practices under French consumer law.

  

B/ Broad interpretation of the concept of a commercial practice

TotalEnergies argued that the contested statements fell under institutional corporate communications, rather than the direct promotion of specific goods or services.

 

The Court nevertheless adopted a broad interpretation of the concept of ‘commercial practice’. It held that content disseminated through channels accessible to the general public can influence the overall brand perception and, indirectly, consumer choice. As such, the commercial nature of the communications could therefore be established, particularly in respect of messages claiming "carbon neutrality”. The Court emphasized that these materials, accessible to the general public,  aim to influence consumers' economic behavior by ‘greening’ the group’s overall image.

 

Accordingly, the Court reconfirmed that the dissemination of content on a company website – even a non-transactional website – does not exclude the application of French consumer law.

 

C/ Assessment of the misleading nature of the claims: carbon neutrality tested against the average consumer

To contest the misleading nature of its communications, TotalEnergies developed a defense centered on the absence of a binding regulatory framework. The group argued that in the absence of a single legal definition or scientific consensus on the concept of carbon neutrality as applied to private companies, it remained free to define its own strategy. Drawing on recommendations from the French Financial Markets Authority (AMF) and EU Directive 2024/825, the Group argued that its messages reflected institutional ambitions "at its own scale” rather than firm commitments.

 

TotalEnergies further argued that the environmental associations had failed to demonstrate any actual impact on consumer economic behavior and noted that the contested statements had already been withdrawn.

 

The Court, however, rejected these arguments and centered its analysis on the perception of the average consumer, the standard benchmark under EU and French consumer law. It held that TotalEnergies’ communications implicitly referred to carbon neutrality as defined by the Paris Agreement, without disclosing that the company was applying its own internal definition of the concept. This omission was considered liable to mislead consumers by leading them to believe that purchasing TotalEnergies’ products actively supported the green transition.

 

The Court also highlighted a fundamental inconsistency: while leading reference frameworks (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Paris Agreement framework, the International Energy Agency (IEA), and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)) condition carbon neutrality upon a global reduction in fossil fuel consumption and the cessation of investment in new fossil fuel projects, TotalEnergies’ advertising remained ambiguous and its actions ran counter to this objective. Consequently, the Court held that carbon neutrality claims were misleading.

 

The judgment thus reaffirms that any environmental claim must be grounded in verifiable commitments and a clearly defined implementation plan, failing which it could be considered misleading.

     

II. A ruling of limited scope that nonetheless reflects the evolving landscape of greenwashing litigation

A/ A legally restrained ruling: the dismissal of additional claims

While the Court found some specific carbon neutrality claims misleading, it dismissed several of the plaintiffs’ additional claims.

 

First, it held that statements concerning fossil gas and agrofuels were not directly linked to the promotion or sale of specific consumer products, and could not, therefore, be classified as misleading commercial practices.

 

Second, claims based on ‘ecological harm’ (préjudice écologique) under Articles 1246 et seq.of the French Civil Code were dismissed, due to the absence of a direct link between the contested communications and a specific established environmental harm.

 

Third, the Court declined to characterize the communications as a breach of a general environmental duty of care under Articles 1240 and 1241 of the French Civil Code.

 

However, the Court did recognize the existence of non-material damage (moral harm) suffered by the associations. It held that the carbon neutrality claims – having been established as misleading commercial practices – prejudiced the collective interests of these organizations, particularly their efforts to combat climate change.

 

Consequently, TotalEnergies was ordered to pay €8,000 in damages to each plaintiff association. The Court also ordered the discontinuation of the misleading communications and required the prominent publication of the judgment on the group’s websites for a period of 180 days, subject to a penalty payment of €10,000 for each day of delay.

  

B/ A decision influenced by an evolving European regulatory framework

TotalEnergies announced that it would not appeal the ruling, rendering the judgment final and binding.

 

Beyond its immediate judicial outcome, this decision marks a turning point in consumer protection and the fight against greenwashing. Indeed, it represents one of the first instances in which a fossil fuel major has been held liable for misleading the public by ‘greening’ its image regarding its contribution to climate change mitigation.

Until recently, French courts had rarely issued sanctions for greenwashing practices, and adopted a cautious approach to greenwashing cases, as seen in the Vattenfall Energies case[2], where the Court dismissed allegations of misleading commercial practices regarding a ‘carbon-neutral electricity’ offer. At the time, the judges held that the supplier demonstrated a genuine intent to provide information on a complex subject and that consumers retained the ability to supplement their knowledge via the company’s website.

 

The TotalEnergies ruling aligns with a broader international trend toward stricter enforcement against greenwashing. The Court expressly referred to Directive (EU) 2024/825 of February 28, 2024. This framework, which is set to be transposed by March 2026, strengthens the fight against greenwashing by expressly integrating environmental claims into the scope of misleading commercial practices. In this case, the Court adopted an anticipatory interpretative stance, illustrating, even now, the significant influence of this European framework on environmental law.

  

C/ Practical implications for companies: strengthening ESG communications compliance

By incorporating environmental impact among the essential characteristics of goods and services, the ‘Climate and Resilience’ Law of August 22, 2021, established a duty of environmental honesty toward consumers. While price remains the most likely factor to influence consumer choice, the environmental qualities of products are subject to increasingly intense public scrutiny.

  

Legal and compliance teams should therefore ensure that:

•  announced climate trajectories are properly documented and substantiated;
•  selected methodologies and their limitations are clearly disclosed;
•  environmental claims are supported by verifiable and documented evidence.

 

In a rapidly evolving European regulatory framework, the TotalEnergies ruling highlights the need for a cross-functional approach combining communications, compliance, and litigation risk management, in order to secure corporate ESG strategies.