A US appellate court has rejected New York City's greenwashing claims against major fossil fuel companies, dealing a setback to the city's attempt to hold energy producers liable over misleading climate marketing.

The ruling ends, for now, the city's bid to pursue the companies under consumer-protection and fraud theories tied to their public statements on climate change and fossil fuels.

What did the court decide?

The appellate court ruled against New York City and in favor of the fossil fuel company defendants. The court refused to allow the city's greenwashing claims — allegations that the companies deceived the public about their products' role in climate change — to proceed.

No damages award, penalty, or injunction followed. The decision is a procedural and substantive win for the defendants and a loss for the city as plaintiff.

Who brought the case and on what theory?

New York City sued the fossil fuel companies alleging that their promotional and public messaging misrepresented the climate impact of their products — a theory commonly described as greenwashing or climate-related consumer deception.

The city sought to frame the dispute around deceptive advertising and public statements rather than around emissions themselves.

What does the ruling mean for practitioners?

For counsel representing municipalities, the decision narrows one litigation avenue against energy producers: consumer-deception framings tied to climate messaging now face a documented appellate rejection in this posture. Defense counsel can cite the ruling when resisting similar greenwashing theories.

Plaintiffs' lawyers pursuing climate claims against fossil fuel companies may need to rely on other legal theories — such as nuisance, failure-to-warn, or statutory claims — rather than greenwashing allegations of the kind the city advanced.

The decision also signals judicial reluctance to convert corporate climate messaging into a standalone basis for liability, at least on the record the city presented in this case.

What happens next?

The city may seek further review, including a petition to a higher court. Absent such a step, the appellate rejection stands as the final word in this litigation.

Neither side has announced its next move publicly. The defendants treated the ruling as a rejection of the city's claims; the city has not conceded the broader climate-accountability effort, which continues in other courts and other jurisdictions.