disproportionate - The Latremie Post

**ExxonMobil Files Federal Lawsuit Challenging California’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Laws**

ExxonMobil has filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging two California laws that require the oil giant to report the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the use of its products worldwide.

The company submitted a 30-page complaint on Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. ExxonMobil argues that these laws violate its First Amendment free speech rights by compelling it to “trumpet California’s preferred message even though ExxonMobil believes the speech is misleading and misguided.”

—

**Overview of the California Climate Legislation**

Senate Bill 253, known as the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act of 2023, mandates the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to adopt regulations this year. These regulations require public and private companies with over $1 billion in annual revenue to publicly disclose their greenhouse gas emissions across three different “scopes”:

– **Scope 1:** Direct greenhouse gas emissions from the company and its branches.
– **Scope 2:** Indirect emissions, such as electricity purchased by the company.
– **Scope 3:** Emissions from the company’s supply chain, including waste, water usage, business travel, and employee commutes. Notably, these account for about 75% of a company’s greenhouse gas emissions in many industries.

Reporting on Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions will begin in 2026, with Scope 3 reporting starting in 2027.

—

**ExxonMobil’s Objections**

According to the lawsuit, the Air Resources Board solicited public input during the rule-making process but has yet to respond to ExxonMobil’s September 5 letter, which detailed its objections to the proposed reporting methods.

ExxonMobil contends that the legislative history reveals the laws aim to unfairly single out companies like ExxonMobil “for being large” and to spur public criticism. The complaint states, “California may believe that companies that meet the statutes’ revenue thresholds are uniquely responsible for climate change, but the First Amendment categorically bars it from forcing ExxonMobil to speak in service of that misguided viewpoint.”

—

**Expert and Legislative Perspectives**

Michael Gerrard, a prominent climate change legal expert at Columbia University, commented, “These laws do not require Exxon to make any changes in the way it produces, transports, refines or sells oil. They are just about information that Exxon doesn’t want to provide to the public.” He continued, “If Exxon thinks any of the information would be misleading, it’s free to explain why so that readers can draw their own conclusions.”

Supporters of the legislation argue it discourages corporate greenwashing—the practice of falsely portraying a company’s efforts to reduce climate emissions. Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), the bill’s author, stated at the time of adoption, “We need the full picture to make the deep emissions cuts that scientists tell us are necessary to avert the worst impacts of climate change.”

—

**Additional Legislation and Legal Challenges**

Another related bill, Senate Bill 261, requires corporations with revenues over $500 million to disclose their climate-related financial risks. In its lawsuit, ExxonMobil claims this law would force it “to engage in granular conjecture about unknowable future developments and to publicly disseminate that speculation on its website.”

—

**Defendants Named in the Lawsuit**

The lawsuit names as defendants California Attorney General Rob Bonta, Air Resources Board Chair Lauren Sanchez, Executive Officer Steven S. Cliff, and two officials from the Board’s Industrial Strategies Division.

—

Neither the Attorney General’s office nor ExxonMobil responded to requests for comment on Saturday. The case is expected to bring significant attention to the intersection of climate policy, corporate responsibility, and free speech rights.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-10-25/exxonmobil-lawsuit-california-greenhouse-emissions

In early September, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) submitted an amicus brief to Ecuador’s Constitutional Court in support of a constitutional challenge filed by Ecuadorian NGOs, including INREDH and LaLibre. The case challenges the constitutionality of the Ley Orgánica de Inteligencia (LOI) and its implementing regulation, the General Regulation of the LOI.

EFF’s amicus brief argues that the LOI enables disproportionate surveillance and secrecy that undermine constitutional and Inter-American human rights standards. We urge the Constitutional Court to declare the LOI and its regulation unconstitutional in their entirety.

### Structural Flaws of the LOI

Our submission notes that:

> “The LOI presents a structural flaw that undermines compliance with the principles of legality, legitimate purpose, suitability, necessity, and proportionality; it inverts the rule and the exception, with serious harm to rights enshrined constitutionally and under the Convention; and it prioritizes indeterminate state interests, in contravention of the ultimate aim of intelligence activities and state action, namely the protection of individuals, their rights, and freedoms.”

### Core Legal Problems Identified

#### Vague and Overbroad Definitions

The LOI contains key terms such as “national security,” “integral security of the State,” “threats,” and “risks” that are either left undefined or framed so broadly that they could encompass almost anything. This vagueness grants intelligence agencies wide and unchecked discretion, falling short of the legal certainty standard required under the American Convention on Human Rights (CADH).

#### Secrecy and Lack of Transparency

The LOI makes secrecy the rule rather than the exception, reversing the Inter-American principle of maximum disclosure, which holds that access to information should be the norm and secrecy a narrowly justified exception.

The law establishes a classification system—“restricted,” “secret,” and “top secret”—for intelligence and counterintelligence information, but lacks clear, verifiable parameters to guide its application on a case-by-case basis. Consequently, all information produced by the governing body (ente rector) of the National Intelligence System is classified as secret by default.

Moreover, intelligence budgets and spending are insulated from meaningful public oversight, concentrated under a single authority, and eventually destroyed, leaving no mechanism for accountability.

#### Weak or Nonexistent Oversight Mechanisms

The LOI leaves intelligence agencies to regulate themselves, with almost no external scrutiny. Civilian oversight is minimal and limited to occasional, closed-door briefings before a parliamentary commission that lacks real access to information or decision-making power.

This structure offers no guarantee of independent or judicial supervision and fosters an environment where intelligence operations proceed without transparency or accountability.

#### Intrusive Powers Without Judicial Authorization

The LOI permits access to communications, databases, and personal data without prior judicial order. This enables mass surveillance of electronic communications, metadata, and databases across public and private entities—including telecommunication operators.

Such provisions directly contradict rulings from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which establish that any restriction on the right to privacy must be necessary, proportionate, and subject to independent oversight.

Furthermore, it contravenes the CAJAR vs. Colombia judgment, which affirms that intrusive surveillance requires prior judicial authorization.

### International Human Rights Standards Applied

Our amicus curiae draws on the CAJAR vs. Colombia judgment, which set strict standards for intelligence activities. Ecuador’s LOI falls short of all these tests. Specifically, it:

– Fails to provide an adequate legal basis for limiting rights.
– Contravenes principles of necessity and proportionality.
– Lacks robust controls and safeguards, such as prior judicial authorization and meaningful civilian oversight.
– Disregards related data protection guarantees and the rights of data subjects.

At its core, the LOI structurally prioritizes vague notions of “state interest” over the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. It legalizes secrecy, unchecked surveillance, and impunity for intelligence agencies.

### Conclusion

For these reasons, we strongly urge Ecuador’s Constitutional Court to declare the LOI and its regulations unconstitutional, as they violate both the Ecuadorian Constitution and the American Convention on Human Rights (CADH).
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/10/eff-backs-constitutional-challenge-ecuadors-intelligence-law-undermines-human

Tag: disproportionate

EFF Backs Constitutional Challenge to Ecuador’s Intelligence Law That Undermines Human Rights