TotalEnergies Challenges Landmark Climate Ruling and Disputes Customer Liability for Emissions

TotalEnergies has decided to appeal the ruling of the Paris Judicial Court of June 25th, 2026, which required the French energy company to align its operations with climate change objectives. The decision follows a review of the ruling by the company’s Board of Directors, which has chosen to challenge the ruling in the proceedings initiated by several associations under the French law on duty of vigilance (devoir de vigilance).

The ruling is considered a significant precedent in French climate litigation because the court held that climate change could fall within the scope of the duty of vigilance legislation and that, consequently, the plan prepared by TotalEnergies must also consider emissions generated by customers’ use of fuels (so-called Scope 3 emissions).

The case represents one of the most significant climate litigation cases against a major energy company, as it focuses on the issue of corporate responsibility for the emissions generated by the end-use of their products.

According to TotalEnergies, requiring companies in the energy, defense, aeronautics, and automotive sectors to monitor the risks arising from the use of their products by customers would not be consistent with the objectives of the regulation, nor with the principles of legal certainty and freedom of enterprise.

In justifying its appeal, TotalEnergies also cites the European Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), emphasizing that the EU regulation does not include customer activities within its scope. According to the company, this element confirms a distinction between corporate responsibility for their own value chain and the responsibility arising from the autonomous decisions of end users. The arguments will now be submitted to the Paris Court of Appeal, which is called upon to review the decision of the lower court.

The TotalEnergies case is particularly significant

The case is part of a broader context of growing climate litigation against major energy companies, which increasingly calls into question the role of companies in preventing and managing the environmental impacts of their operations. Internationally, the outcomes of these cases have so far been mixed. One example is Shell’s case in the Netherlands, where the landmark ruling requiring the company to reduce its emissions was subsequently overturned on appeal and is now pending before the Dutch Supreme Court.

The TotalEnergies case is particularly significant because it addresses one of the most controversial issues in climate litigation: to what extent companies can be held responsible not only for the emissions generated directly by their own operations, but also for those associated with the use of products sold on the market.

The outcome of the appeal could therefore help further define the boundaries of corporate climate responsibility within the framework of due diligence and corporate sustainability regulations.

__

(Featured image by Tatos Mansour via Unsplash)

DISCLAIMER: This article was written by a third party contributor and does not reflect the opinion of Born2Invest, its management, staff or its associates. Please review our disclaimer for more information.

This article may include forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements generally are identified by the words “believe,” “project,” “estimate,” “become,” “plan,” “will,” and similar expressions. These forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks as well as uncertainties, including those discussed in the following cautionary statements and elsewhere in this article and on this site. Although the Company may believe that its expectations are based on reasonable assumptions, the actual results that the Company may achieve may differ materially from any forward-looking statements, which reflect the opinions of the management of the Company only as of the date hereof. Additionally, please make sure to read these important disclosures.

First published in ESG NEWS. A third-party contributor translated and adapted the article from the original. In case of discrepancy, the original will prevail.

Although we made reasonable efforts to provide accurate translations, some parts may be incorrect. Born2Invest assumes no responsibility for errors, omissions or ambiguities in the translations provided on this website. Any person or entity relying on translated content does so at their own risk. Born2Invest is not responsible for losses caused by such reliance on the accuracy or reliability of translated information. If you wish to report an error or inaccuracy in the translation, we encourage you to contact us.