Federal Judge Lets ExxonMobil Sue California Attorney General Over Recycling Remarks

Lead

A federal judge in Texas has allowed ExxonMobil to pursue a defamation claim against California Attorney General Rob Bonta over public statements about the company’s plastic recycling efforts. The decision, issued by U.S. District Judge Michael J. Truncale of the Eastern District of Texas earlier this month, rejected Bonta’s claim to official immunity for several statements, including a campaign email sent to Texas residents. The ruling clears the way for Exxon’s suit against Bonta in his individual capacity while dismissing the company’s claims against several environmental groups. Both sides frame the dispute around the effectiveness of so‑called advanced recycling and its role in consumer messaging.

Key Takeaways

• U.S. District Judge Michael J. Truncale (Eastern District of Texas) ruled earlier this month that California AG Rob Bonta cannot invoke official immunity for multiple statements, allowing ExxonMobil’s defamation claim against him to proceed.
• Rob Bonta originally sued Exxon in September 2024, alleging the company encouraged purchases of plastic products with promises they would be recycled; Bonta said under 5% of plastic is recycled into another plastic product.
• Exxon countered by filing a defamation suit in Texas against Bonta (in his individual capacity) and several environmental groups, claiming reputational and contract harms; claims against the groups were dismissed.
• The judge pointed to a campaign email to Texas residents that included the line “Exxon Mobil knew, and Exxon Mobil lied,” and found a donation link transformed the message into campaign activity not covered by official‑capacity immunity.
• Bonta’s office did not immediately reply to requests for comment; ExxonMobil characterized the AG’s statements as a “campaign of lies designed to derail our advanced recycling business.”
• The case underscores tensions over venue selection—filed in Texas near Exxon’s principal place of business—and how campaign communications by elected officials intersect with official immunities.

Background

The dispute sits at the intersection of environmental policy, corporate communications and election‑era campaigning. Over recent years, major oil and chemical companies have promoted “advanced” or chemical recycling technologies as a way to convert mixed plastic waste back into feedstock for new polymers, drawing scrutiny from regulators, environmental groups and researchers about scale, emissions and actual recycling outcomes. California, as a large consumer market with active environmental enforcement, has been a focal point for litigation and regulatory pressure on petrochemical firms.

Rob Bonta, California’s attorney general, has positioned his office as a consumer‑protection and environmental enforcer; in September 2024 he sued Exxon alleging deceptive marketing related to plastics recycling. Exxon has disputed the allegations and shifted some blame to deficiencies in California’s municipal recycling systems. The company later filed a defamation suit in Texas, where it is headquartered, alleging certain public statements damaged current and prospective business contracts.

Main Event

In the ruling issued earlier this month, Judge Truncale examined whether statements by AG Bonta were protected by official‑capacity immunity. The judge concluded that several communications—most notably a campaign email sent to Texas residents that included a contribution link—fell outside the scope of protected official acts. Truncale wrote that the presence of a campaign solicitation transformed the email into campaign speech, which is not within the attorney general’s scope of employment.

Bonta’s earlier suit against Exxon, filed in September 2024, alleged the company encouraged consumers to buy plastic products with the implication they would be recycled, while in practice fewer than 5% of plastic items are reprocessed into new plastic products. Exxon responded by filing a separate defamation complaint in Texas, naming Bonta in his individual capacity and several environmental organizations; the Texas court dismissed claims against the groups but preserved the claim against Bonta personally.

In court filings and public statements, the parties framed the conflict differently. Bonta has said his communications were an update to constituents about his office’s work; Exxon has said the AG’s statements were false and injurious to its business prospects. Exxon’s public statement called for an end to what it described as a “campaign of lies designed to derail our advanced recycling business.” Bonta’s office did not provide an immediate public comment to reporters seeking response after the ruling.

Analysis & Implications

Legally, the decision highlights a narrow but important boundary between official acts taken in a government role and speech tied to campaigning or partisan promotion. Courts typically grant immunity for actions within an official’s duties, but the presence of explicit campaign solicitations can shift the analysis and remove that shield. This ruling may prompt other state attorneys general and their communications teams to more carefully segregate official notifications from campaign outreach.

Strategically, Exxon’s choice to sue in Texas—near its principal place of business—reflects common forum‑shopping tactics in high‑stakes corporate litigation. Plaintiffs and defendants often select venues they view as more favorable on procedural or substantive grounds; the Texas filing permitted Exxon to seek relief in a district where courts have been receptive to corporate claims in recent years. Observers will watch whether the venue decision affects timing, discovery scope or settlement incentives.

On policy, the dispute intensifies scrutiny of advanced recycling claims. If courts allow defamation claims tied to disputed scientific or technical assertions to proceed, companies may feel greater pressure to substantiate public claims about recycling rates and technology performance. Conversely, enforcement officials may be more cautious in public messaging that could be construed as campaign rhetoric when discussing corporate conduct.

Comparison & Data

The table summarizes the competing public claims in the case without introducing independent new data. The core numerical point at issue is Bonta’s assertion that under 5% of plastic is reprocessed into another plastic product — a figure he used to allege deceptive marketing. Exxon has challenged the causal framing, arguing municipal infrastructure and system design explain low recycling outcomes in some jurisdictions. Independent third‑party data on recycling rates vary by material type and jurisdiction, and litigants may dispute which studies or metrics are dispositive.

Reactions & Quotes

Both sides issued short public statements and court filings framing the outcome to their advantage. Below are key excerpts and context.

“Here, the contribution request betrays the email’s true nature: a campaign promotion. Campaigning is not within Bonta’s scope of employment.”

Judge Michael J. Truncale (Eastern District of Texas)

The judge wrote this language in explaining why the specific campaign email could not be treated as an official communication protected by immunity. The finding turned on the presence of an explicit donation link, which the court said converted the message into campaign activity.

“Exxon Mobil knew, and Exxon Mobil lied.”

Text of campaign email attributed to AG Rob Bonta

That line, included in a campaign email sent to Texas recipients and referenced in court filings, anchored Exxon’s defamation claim. Bonta’s office has argued the communication was an update on enforcement priorities; the court found at least part of the communication operated as campaign speech.

“The campaign of lies designed to derail our advanced recycling business must stop.”

ExxonMobil statement

Exxon used this language in a public response framing the AG’s statements as intentionally misleading and damaging to business relationships. The company argues the remarks harmed current and future contracts for its recycling initiatives.

Unconfirmed

• Whether the campaign email directly caused any lost contracts or measurable economic harm to Exxon remains alleged by the company and not yet proven in court.
• The specific performance metrics and independent validation of Exxon’s advanced recycling processes are disputed and have not been adjudicated in this case.
• Any internal Exxon communications that might corroborate or refute Bonta’s allegations have not been publicly disclosed or verified in court filings available to reporters at the time of this article.

Bottom Line

The Texas judge’s decision narrows the immediate litigation pathway: Exxon may proceed against Rob Bonta in his individual capacity, while claims targeting environmental groups were dismissed. The ruling turns on the legal distinction between official duties and campaign speech, emphasizing how a fundraising link can alter immunity protections for elected officials.

Beyond procedural consequences, the case spotlights the contested facts and public narratives around plastic recycling and corporate messaging. The litigation could force more concrete evidence into the public record about recycling rates, technology efficacy and the consequences of public statements by state officials—outcomes that will matter to regulators, companies and advocacy groups alike as the dispute moves forward.

Sources

• Yahoo News (AP reporting) — news outlet (Associated Press report syndicated on Yahoo)