A federal judge in Texas has delivered a significant ruling that permits ExxonMobil to proceed with a defamation lawsuit against California Attorney General Rob Bonta. The case centres on comments Bonta made regarding the oil giant's plastics recycling claims, which Exxon argues have harmed its business interests.
Judge Truncale's Ruling on Official Immunity
U.S. District Judge Michael J. Truncale, serving in the Eastern District of Texas, issued a ruling earlier this month that denies Bonta's claim to official immunity. The judge determined that several statements made by the California attorney general, including those in a campaign email sent to Texas residents, fall outside the protection typically afforded to public officials in their official capacity.
Background of the Legal Dispute
The legal battle began in September 2024 when Attorney General Bonta filed a lawsuit against ExxonMobil. Bonta alleged that the company encouraged consumers to buy plastics products with promises of recycling, while less than 5% of plastic is actually recycled into new plastic products. He criticised recycling processes promoted by Exxon as ineffective, with Exxon countering that the issue lies with California's own recycling system.
In response, ExxonMobil sued Bonta in his individual capacity, along with environmental groups, for defamation. The company argued that Bonta's comments damaged current and future business contracts. The lawsuit was filed in Texas, near Exxon's principal place of business, a strategic move that has now been partially validated by the court.
Campaign Email at the Heart of the Case
Judge Truncale specifically highlighted a campaign email Bonta sent to Texas residents, which stated that only 5% of plastic is recycled, with the remainder ending up in the environment and human bodies. The email included the phrase: "Exxon Mobil knew, and Exxon Mobil lied." Bonta, a Democrat, defended the communication as merely updating recipients on his office's activities.
However, the judge noted that a campaign contribution link within the email transformed it into a campaign activity. "Here, the contribution request betrays the email's true nature: a campaign promotion. Campaigning is not within Bonta's scope of employment," Truncale wrote in his ruling. This distinction was crucial in allowing the defamation suit to proceed against Bonta personally.
Implications and Reactions
While the lawsuit against the environmental groups was dismissed, the decision to allow it against Bonta marks a notable development in corporate-legal conflicts. Bonta's office has not yet responded to requests for comment following the ruling.
ExxonMobil released a statement asserting that "the campaign of lies designed to derail our advanced recycling business must stop." The company maintains that its recycling efforts are legitimate and that Bonta's remarks have unfairly targeted its operations.
This case underscores the ongoing tensions between state environmental policies and corporate interests, particularly in the plastics industry. It also raises questions about the boundaries of official immunity when public officials engage in activities that blend governmental duties with political campaigning.
The ruling sets the stage for further legal proceedings, as ExxonMobil seeks to prove defamation and recover damages. Observers will be watching closely to see how this dispute evolves, potentially influencing future interactions between state attorneys general and major corporations over environmental claims.
