We wish we were joking.
Utah just became the first state in the country to give fossil fuel companies a sweeping legal shield from climate accountability.
It’s April Fools’ Day, which would be a great time for this to be fake, but it’s not. Last week, Utah passed a law that makes it almost impossible to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for climate damages.
Last week, Spencer Cox signed a bill that, at first glance, looks like a technical change to how courts evaluate claims tied to greenhouse gas emissions. In practice, it makes those cases nearly impossible to bring, shielding oil and gas companies from being held financially responsible for the damage tied to their products.
The law sets an unusually high new standard that requires plaintiffs to prove, with “clear and convincing evidence,” that a company violated a specific emissions law or permit. That seemingly minor framing matters because climate harm does not come from a single illegal act that can be cleanly isolated and proven in court. It is the result of decades of extraction, promotion, and in many cases, documented deception about the risks. By narrowing the question to whether a company broke a discrete rule, the law effectively sidesteps the broader conduct at the center of climate accountability efforts.
It doesn’t need to ban claims outright in order to change the rules just enough that most of them will fail before they begin.
The least funny part about this is that this is happening all across the country at this very moment. Fossil fuel companies and their allies have been building toward this moment, as climate lawsuits brought by states and cities are moving closer to trial and climate superfund laws, which would require major emitters to contribute to the costs of adaptation and recovery, are rapidly gaining momentum. All of that adds up to an industry facing very real financial and legal threats.
What’s happening in Utah is a direct response to that pressure. It’s part of a broader, coordinated effort to shut down climate accountability policies before they can take hold. Trade associations like the American Petroleum Institute have made stopping climate liability and superfund-style policies a central priority in 2026, while companies and their lobbying networks have pushed lawmakers to intervene before courts or legislatures can act. At the federal level, industry allies are already working on proposals that would extend similar protections nationwide.
At the state level, the strategy is moving quickly. Versions of Utah’s law are advancing in Tennessee, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Iowa. In many cases, the language is nearly identical, drawn from model legislation circulated by groups tied to radical, far-right billionaire Leonard Leo.
It’s worth mentioning that a lot of this work also happens out of view.
The industry rarely shows up as Exxon or Chevron when these bills move. Instead, it operates through a network of trade associations, front groups, and consulting firms that present themselves as independent voices. Organizations framed as taxpayer advocates or local business coalitions show up to testify, submit comments, and place op-eds, creating the appearance of broad, grassroots opposition to climate accountability policies.
Industry-backed groups exist, in part, to say things companies cannot say as directly. Famously, thanks to Greenpeace, one Exxon lobbyist was caught on camera describing trade associations as a “whipping boy,” absorbing scrutiny while companies remain at a distance.
The fossil fuel industry has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbying and elections in recent years, building a system that can move quickly when legal or policy risks emerge, and those risks are becoming harder to ignore.
More than two dozen climate lawsuits are currently working their way through U.S. courts, many of them focused on whether fossil fuel companies misled the public about the risks of their products and should help pay for resulting damages. Several are closer than they have ever been to trial. At the same time, the Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to weigh in on key questions that could determine whether those cases proceed.
For the industry, that creates a narrow window to act, because if courts allow these cases to move forward, and especially if any succeed, the consequences could extend well beyond a single jurisdiction. Moreover, litigation has a fun way of surfacing internal documents and forcing public accountability and reshaping industries, à la tobacco and opioids.
As more states consider climate superfund laws and as litigation continues to advance, the pressure to replicate this model will grow. Versions of these bills are already moving elsewhere, and proposals at the federal level could go even further, overriding state efforts entirely.
If that happens, it would close off one of the primary ways communities have to recover the massive costs of climate damage. Those costs aren’t going away. They would continue to rise, and they would continue to fall on households, local governments, and insurers, while the companies most responsible remain largely insulated.
That’s the direction this policy is pointing, and why what happened in Utah matters far beyond a single state.
So if you don’t think fossil fuel companies should get a free pass, join us and take action today.
