Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel filed a sweeping antitrust lawsuit on January 23, 2026, accusing BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell and the American Petroleum Institute of operating as a cartel for decades to suppress renewable energy and electric vehicles. The 126-page complaint, lodged in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, claims the defendants colluded to reduce production of renewable electricity, restrain EV emergence and prioritize fossil fuels, driving up energy costs for residents.
“These out-of-control costs are not the result of natural economic inflation, but due to the greed of these corporations who prioritized their own profit and marketplace dominance over competition and consumer savings,” Nessel said in a statement, as reported by MLive. The suit alleges this conspiracy, described as “one of the most successful antitrust conspiracies in United States history,” violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, Clayton Antitrust Act and Michigan Antitrust Reform Act.
The filing marks a novel twist in legal battles against oil majors, shifting from climate deception claims to anticompetitive practices targeting clean technologies. It seeks treble damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctions against further collusion and attorney fees, with law firms Sher Edling LLP, DiCello Levitt LLP and Hausfeld LLP working on contingency.
Decades of Suppressed Innovation
Rooted in the 1970s, the alleged plot saw Exxon pioneer hybrid gas-electric technologies, including a 1978 demonstration in a Chrysler Cordoba and a 1979 partnership with Toyota on a Cressida chassis prototype. Yet, “Exxon never marketed that innovative hybrid engine technology and consistently has deferred meaningful investment in its lithium-ion and graphite-based battery technologies for EVs,” the complaint states, per Reuters. A 1979 Exxon internal report foresaw renewables as a threat to fossil fuels, prompting coordination via the API’s CO2 and Climate Task Force.
Chevron allegedly acquired patents to block nickel-metal hydride batteries vital for EVs. The suit details tactics like abandoning solar ventures—where majors controlled 70% of U.S. sales in the early 1980s before dismantling operations—patent “capture-and-kill” strategies, disinformation on climate science and lobbying against EV infrastructure at gas stations. By the 1950s, internal research uncovered fossil fuel harms, but companies sowed doubt instead.
Without this interference, Michigan would boast widespread EVs—beyond today’s 1.5% of vehicles—ubiquitous chargers and a greener grid, the suit envisions: “EVs would not be a fringe technology… rolling off assembly lines in Flint, parked in driveways in Dearborn,” as quoted in Detroit Free Press.
Energy Costs and Economic Fallout
Nessel ties the cartel to Michigan’s affordability crisis, with soaring home energy bills and limited transport options. “Whether you own a home, a small business, or run a large corporation, rising energy and transportation costs harm everyone,” she stated (The Hill). The suit claims U.S. lag behind China in clean tech stems from suppressed R&D, forcing catch-up in batteries and renewables.
Defendants dismissed the claims. “These baseless lawsuits are a coordinated campaign against an industry that powers everyday life, drives America’s economy, and is actively reducing emissions,” API General Counsel Ryan Meyers said (Detroit News). Chevron’s Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. highlighted dismissals of prior suits in Delaware, Maryland and others, noting Michigan’s oil reliance for automakers: “This lawsuit also ignores the fact that Michigan is highly dependent on oil and gas to support the state’s automakers and workers” (Yahoo Finance via Reuters). Shell declined comment; BP and Exxon did not respond immediately.
Sierra Club Michigan praised the action, with Tim Minotas arguing renewables are cheapest yet blocked by oil influence favoring data centers. State Rep. Pauline Wendzel countered that 2023 green mandates, not oil firms, drive costs.
Broader Legal Echoes
This antitrust pivot differs from climate suits like California’s 2023 case or Puerto Rico municipalities’ 2022 racketeering claims, dismissed last year. Nessel called hers “the first case of its kind where these types of antitrust claims were brought against a fossil fuel cartel” (Detroit Free Press). Courts have rejected many climate damages bids, but this focuses on trade restraint.
On X, reactions ranged from support for accountability to skepticism, with users sharing links to Daily Wire coverage labeling it a partisan ploy amid EV market struggles post-Trump’s tax credit cuts. The suit arrives as Trump policies ease EV mandates set under Biden.
Filing on contingency signals high stakes; success could unlock billions and reshape energy competition, though defendants eye quick dismissal citing precedents and Michigan’s auto sector needs.
Path Forward in Court
Not yet assigned a judge, the case tests antitrust law against industry giants in the EV era. Remedies demand repayment of ill-gotten gains and permanent halts to collusion, potentially forcing divestitures or tech disclosures. For insiders, it spotlights how 1970s innovations might have accelerated today’s shift, leaving the U.S. trailing global EV leaders.