Nearly two years after announcing her intent to sue American energy companies over climate deception, outgoing Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel filed her long-anticipated lawsuit today – the latest development in a decade-long national litigation campaign that has struggled to gain traction.  

After more than ten years of setbacks for climate lawsuits based on public nuisance and consumer deception claims, Nessel’s case attempts to put new wrapping on a broken toy by alleging companies conspired to suppress competition and stall alternative energy development. 

Despite the new legal theory, this approach contains the same fundamental flaws as previous climate cases. A careful review reveals the allegations appear designed more for political optics than legal success – particularly given that Nessel is term-limited and will leave office at year’s end.  

Neither a Novel Theory Nor a Successful One 

Nessel has billed this lawsuit as a first-of-its-kind effort, suggesting it breaks meaningfully from earlier climate cases that have struggled or failed in court. It does not. 

Michigan’s case is being advanced by the same private law firms—Sher Edling, Hausfeld, and DiCello Levitt—that have been driving climate litigation against energy companies since at least 2017. These firms have spearheaded public nuisance, consumer-deception, racketeering, and other theories across the country. As those claims have repeatedly run into legal roadblocks, the framing has shifted. The campaign has not. 

Nor is the antitrust angle unprecedented. As the Detroit Free Press reports, a climate case brought by municipalities in Puerto Rico included antitrust and RICO claims. The lawsuit was dismissed in September.  

Across the country, state and local climate lawsuits have been running into serious trouble. Courts have rejected expansive nuisance theories. Judges have questioned whether states can regulate global emissions through litigation. And multiple cases have bogged down over jurisdiction, causation, and constitutional limits on state power. Not to mention many of Michigan’s allied blue states have significantly walked back ambitious climate goals and rhetoric. 

That criticism was echoed by national and Michigan business groups weighing in on the announcement, suggesting that Nessel’s rebranding scheme didn’t land so well. As the Detroit Free Press reported: 

Her announcement was met with swift criticism from Michigan business groups including the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which accused Nessel at the time of “jumping on the partisan bandwagon” on a contentious issue in a way that would likely fail in court and be a waste of taxpayer money. 

A Legal Theory Untethered From Reality  

At the end of the day, Nessel’s lawsuit is like all the previous cases – an attempt to bankrupt the American energy industry. The difference lies in the legal framework: allegations of a sweeping anticompetitive “cartel-like” scheme designed to block the development of renewable energy and electric vehicles. According to Nessel: 

“They have done so as a cartel, agreeing to reduce the production and distribution of electricity from renewable sources and to restrain the emergence of electric vehicles (EV) and renewable primary energy technologies in the United States.” 

This theory fails to understand the pace of adaption of electric vehicles and renewables is not determined by oil and gas companies, but rather by basic economics and government policy.  

Drivers are going to buy cars that make sense for their personal budget, automakers are going to make cars that drivers want, and utilities are going to deploy power generation technology that delivers affordable and reliable energy to homes and businesses.  

Moreover, if any actor is distorting the EV market, it’s the federal government. The Biden administration tried to spur EV purchases with subsidies and tax credits – policy decisions that the Trump administration has reversed.  

Michigan’s own auto industry proves the point: General Motors and Ford have delayed EV investments, scaled down production, and acknowledged that demand is weaker than expected.  

It’s market dynamics 101. Nessel essentially conceded as such in the lawsuit, saying that even in Michigan’s imagined all-electric utopia, oil and natural gas would still be used. 

Political Motivations 

At first glance, antitrust law carries weight, signaling consumer harm and invoking competition and prices instead of casting blame for global climate change. And politically, it allows the attorney general to frame this lawsuit as an energy affordability fight rather than a climate crusade – just in time for the mid-terms. 

But that framing collapses under even modest scrutiny. Lawsuits targeting domestic energy producers do not make energy cheaper. Burdensome litigation and Nessel’s threat of a disgorgement of profit – which would ultimately bankrupt energy companies – would drive up costs for the very consumers this lawsuit purports to protect. 

Kevin Kijewski, who’s running on the Republican ticket for Nessel’s open attorney general seat, called it for what this really is: 

“This frivolous lawsuit damages the economy, chills investment, and wastes taxpayer dollars on radical crusades when families need affordable energy…As Michigan’s next Attorney General, I’ll drop these wasteful partisan lawsuits, defend our businesses from overreach, and deliver true energy security for families.” 

It also comes as the AG’s office is currently petitioning the state Supreme Court to loosen the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) and wield her office more power to sue regulated industries – even if their product, such as energy, is deemed essential and legal. 

At a time where Americans are already paying more for energy, suing the companies that produce it at home only undermines affordability. 

Bottom Line 

At its core, Michigan’s new climate lawsuit is an effort to use to sidestep legislatures and use the courts to set national energy policy while attempting to bankrupt energy companies. Whether that gamble pays off is an open question, but history suggests this much is clear: adding antitrust claims just puts a new wrapper on a failed strategy.