Michigan AG Seeks to Recast Climate-Era Conduct as a Sherman Act Conspiracy
Over the past several years, many state attorneys general and cities have sued major oil companies, largely under state consumer protection and unfair or deceptive practices laws. Those cases have typically focused on alleged misstatements about climate change and related risks, emphasizing concerns over advertisements and disclosures, rather than competition law.
Michigan’s Attorney General is taking a different approach. In a lawsuit filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, the State of Michigan invokes federal antitrust law to characterize decades of industry conduct, including trade association activity, public messaging, advertisements, investment choices, and intellectual property strategy, as a coordinated effort to hold back competing technologies and infrastructure. The theory represents a significant departure from prior climate-related litigation grounded in consumer protection.
Executive Summary
In People of the State of Michigan v. BP America Inc. et al, Case No. 1:26-cv-00254 (W.D. Mich. Jan 23, 2026), the State of Michigan alleges that four of the largest major oil companies and industry trade groups worked together for decades to slow the adoption of electric vehicles, renewable energy, and charging networks to preserve fossil fuels. The complaint asks the court to treat lobbying, trade association activity, intellectual property enforcement, investment choices, and public messaging as an illegal agreement under the antitrust laws.
The lawsuit attempts a substantial and novel expansion of antitrust law to political advocacy and long-term technology disputes.
What Michigan Alleges
The State defines two Michigan-focused markets: “transportation energy,” which it frames as gasoline versus electricity for fueling vehicles, and “primary energy,” which it defines as fossil-fuel heat versus renewable electricity for residential and public buildings.
According to the complaint, the defendants conspired to slow the development of renewable technologies and charging infrastructure for electric vehicles, pushed investment toward fossil fuel-adjacent projects such as carbon capture and storage, and shaped public and academic debate to delay electrification. The State claims these actions led to higher prices, fewer choices for consumers, and broad societal harms, and it asks the court to find this conduct per se unlawful.
Why the Case Represents a Novel Expansion of Antitrust
- The theory attempts to frame long-term technology and infrastructure choices, such as electric vehicle batteries, charging networks, and renewable power, as being unlawful restraints of trade, rather than identifying any sort of classic restraints like fixing gasoline prices or reducing energy outputs. Specifically, the State asks the court to treat a mix of conduct by the defendants, lobbying, marketing, academic engagement, intellectual property disputes, and investment decisions, as per se illegal, even though courts usually examine these issues case by case under the “rule of reason.”
- The complaint relies on trade association participation, similar messaging and investment choices, and shared views of the market to suggest a conspiratorial agreement in restraint of trade. However, those activities are common, often beneficial, and sometimes protected, and the complaint does not describe clear, recent commitments to restrict competing technologies in Michigan.
- The State highlights broad societal harms from fossil fuels. These issues are typically addressed through legislation, regulation, or tort law, rather than through an antitrust theory.
Vulnerabilities in the Complaint
- Lack of well-pleaded agreement: The complaint leans on the roles of the American Petroleum Institute and other industry groups, and decades of similar strategies, but provides few specific facts showing an actual agreement among the defendants to limit renewable energy or electric vehicle charging in Michigan within the relevant time period.
- Mismatch with per se or “quick-look” treatment: The alleged conduct spans multiple markets and includes mixed forms of behavior. Courts are likely to require a full effects analysis, which the complaint supports only in generalized assertions.
- Market definition and injury concerns: The Michigan-only market definitions are new and contestable. The damages theory depends on a speculative “what-if” world that assumes much earlier electric vehicle adoption, faster charging build-out, and major grid changes.
- Timeliness issues: Although the State alleges recent overt acts, the core conduct and narrative reach back to the 1970s through the early 2000s, raising statute-of-limitations concerns.
- Protected activity: Large parts of the case target lobbying, public messaging, and academic engagement, implicating constitutional protections for speech and petitioning and further undermining per se treatment under Section 1.
Likely Trajectory
Defendants are expected to move to dismiss on multiple grounds, including failure to plausibly plead any sort of conspiratorial agreement; inapplicability of per se or “quick-look” treatment; defective market definitions; lack of antitrust injury; timeliness; and constitutional defenses tied to advocacy and speech. Given the complaint’s reliance on broad, decades-long industry patterns and association activity rather than concrete, recent agreements to restrict output of substitutes in Michigan, the case faces a meaningful risk of dismissal.
Implications for Companies and Investors
If accepted, Michigan’s theory could subject advocacy, research priorities, public messaging, intellectual property strategy, and investment decisions to antitrust scrutiny whenever they appear to slow a rival technology. The approach would blur the line between policy debates and competition law and significantly expand antitrust risk for energy, transportation, and industrial companies engaged in decarbonization strategy discussions, an expansion courts have generally resisted.
Practical takeaways
- Monitor the motion to dismiss for guidance on how courts will view cross-technology disputes and the evidentiary weight given to trade association activity.
- Review controls around trade association participation, public messaging on technology pathways, and academic engagements to document independent decision-making.
- Expect copycat filings or political scrutiny, but also expect courts to require plaintiffs to include concrete allegations of recent antitrust misconduct that results in measurable harm to prices or outputs.
Companies and investors should contact Varnum’s antitrust attorneys to evaluate how this case may affect advocacy, investment decisions, and antitrust compliance.
