Michigan’s top law enforcement official is testing a new way to go after the fossil fuel industry, accusing some of the world’s largest oil companies of acting like a cartel to keep clean energy on the sidelines. Instead of focusing on climate deception alone, the case argues that Big Oil illegally conspired to block electric vehicles and renewable power, driving up prices for drivers and homeowners in a state built on the auto industry.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court, could become a major test of how far antitrust law can stretch in the climate era. If the claims hold up, the case will not just be about past pollution, it will be about whether oil giants can be held liable for allegedly sabotaging the very technologies meant to replace them.
The lawsuit and its sweeping conspiracy claim
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel has launched a federal antitrust case that accuses four major energy companies and an industry trade group of coordinating to stifle competition from electric vehicles and renewable energy. In the complaint, the state alleges a decades-long conspiracy in which these firms used their market power and political influence to keep gasoline dominant, even as cleaner technologies became viable alternatives for Michigan drivers and utilities. According to the filing, the alleged conduct was not just aggressive lobbying or hard-nosed business strategy, but a structured effort to restrain trade in violation of federal and state competition laws.
Nessel, who has built a profile as a combative state attorney general, is asking the court to find that the companies formed a cartel-like arrangement that harmed Michigan consumers and businesses. The complaint, brought on behalf of the People of the State of Michigan, targets what Nessel describes as coordinated efforts to slow the rollout of electric vehicles and renewable power, and it seeks remedies that include corporate profits being stripped and returned to the public. Reporting on the filing notes that Michigan’s Attorney General is explicitly tying the alleged conspiracy to higher fuel costs and greater exposure to climate change impacts in the state.
A novel antitrust theory aimed at climate obstruction
What makes this case stand out is not just who is being sued, but how. Rather than relying solely on consumer protection or fraud statutes, Nessel is leaning on federal antitrust law and the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act to argue that the oil industry’s climate obstruction amounted to an illegal agreement to restrain competition. Legal analysts have pointed out that in People of the State of Michigan v. BP America Inc. et al, identified as Case No. 1:26-cv-00254 in the Western District of Michigan, the state is effectively asking a court to treat coordinated climate disinformation and policy interference as an anticompetitive “agreement” under traditional competition rules. That is a significant departure from the more familiar climate lawsuits that focus on misleading advertising or failure to warn.
According to summaries of the complaint, the state alleges that the companies and their trade association jointly funded campaigns to undermine electric vehicles, pressured policymakers to favor gasoline infrastructure, and used their control over fuel supply to disadvantage emerging alternatives. One detailed analysis of the filing notes that People of the, the theory is that these coordinated actions crossed the line from parallel conduct into an unlawful agreement to suppress competition. Nessel’s office is also invoking state law, with public statements emphasizing that the case is grounded in both federal statutes and the Michigan Antitrust Reform, which gives the state additional tools to pursue alleged collusion that harms local markets.
Alleged tactics: from EV roadblocks to patent control
The heart of the complaint is a set of specific tactics that Michigan says were designed to keep clean energy from gaining a foothold. According to the state, the targeted companies coordinated to slow the adoption of electric vehicles by funding campaigns that cast doubt on EV reliability, lobbying against charging infrastructure, and pushing for policies that favored internal combustion engines. The lawsuit also alleges that the industry trade group served as a hub for sharing strategy and aligning messaging, which Nessel argues transformed individual corporate decisions into a unified effort to maintain gasoline’s dominance in a state where automakers are rapidly pivoting to electric models.
Beyond messaging and lobbying, the complaint points to historical conduct that, in the state’s view, shows a pattern of using intellectual property and market leverage to block alternatives. One example cited in coverage of the case is that in the 1970s, Exxon, identified by its ticker symbol XOM, developed advanced battery technology but then used control over related patents to limit their use in automobiles, a move that allegedly slowed the commercialization of electric cars. Analysts note that the Michigan filing references this history to argue that Exxon (XOM) and its peers have long treated emerging clean technologies as threats to be contained, not innovations to be embraced. The state also alleges that coordinated efforts to influence utility planning and fuel standards had the effect of sidelining wind and solar projects that could have lowered costs for Michigan ratepayers.
Michigan’s climate and consumer stakes
For Michigan, the case is as much about economic self-interest as it is about climate policy. The state argues that by keeping gasoline artificially dominant and slowing the shift to renewables, the alleged cartel behavior forced residents to pay more at the pump and on their utility bills than they would have in a truly competitive market. Reporting on the complaint notes that Michigan is seeking not only injunctive relief to stop the alleged conduct, but also financial remedies that could include disgorgement of profits tied to the conspiracy. In public comments, Michigan Attorney General has framed the case as an effort to recover money for families who, she says, paid inflated prices because cleaner, cheaper options were deliberately held back.
The lawsuit also ties the alleged conspiracy to the physical impacts of climate change on the Great Lakes state, from heavier flooding to more intense heat waves that strain infrastructure and public health systems. Nessel’s office argues that by delaying the transition to cleaner energy, the companies increased Michigan’s exposure to these risks, particularly in low income communities and industrial corridors that already bear a heavy pollution burden. One detailed account of the filing notes that State Attorney General is explicitly seeking a disgorgement of corporate profits tied to the alleged scheme, arguing that those funds should help pay for climate resilience and clean energy investments in Michigan communities.
Legal headwinds and the broader climate litigation war
Nessel’s antitrust gambit is landing in a legal environment that is already fraught for climate cases. The federal government has previously tried to rein in state-led climate litigation, and Michigan itself has been a target. The Justice Department filed a lawsuit against Nessel in an effort to block certain climate change cases, part of a broader strategy that has also included preemptive actions against Hawaii and challenges to clean energy policies in New York. That history suggests that the federal government may again seek to limit how far a state attorney general can go in using state and federal law to police fossil fuel conduct, particularly when the claims touch on national energy policy. Coverage of that earlier clash notes that The Justice Department has not hesitated to argue that some state climate suits are preempted or otherwise improper.
More from Morning Overview