It is a historic trial, and a potentially groundbreaking one from a legal standpoint, that opened on Thursday 19 February at the court of Paris. In the dock, following a greenwashing conviction handed down last October, is the fossil fuel multinational TotalEnergies, which this time must answer to the accusation of having failed to adequately account for the climate impact of the burning of oil and gas by its customers.

Why the trial against TotalEnergies could set a legal precedent

The very substance of the trial could represent a precedent capable of opening entirely new legal horizons. The legal action was launched in 2020 by four environmental associations – Notre affaire à tous, Sherpa, Zea and France nature environnement – with the backing of the City of Paris. The aim is precisely to persuade the judges to hold the oil company responsible for the consequences of its own business activities. The underlying premise is that the company could not have been unaware that its fossil fuels, once sold, would sooner or later be burned and would result in the release of greenhouse gas emissions.

France Inter ✓ @franceinter

𝕏

Depuis ce jeudi, TotalEnergies est jugé à Paris, accusé d'avoir manqué à son devoir de vigilance en matière de risques environnementaux. Décryptage avec la spécialiste Pauline Abadie au micro de Marion L'Hour (@MarionLHour).

Pour en savoir plus ➡️ l.franceinter.fr/zoR

♥ 10💬 8 20 feb 2026 · Apri su X →

"We turned to the court because TotalEnergies was already aware in the 1970s of the harmful consequences of its activities for the planet – explained Justine Ripoll, head of campaigns at Notre affaire à tous –. Despite this, its business model remains heavily oriented towards fossil fuels, which are responsible for 70 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions".

The goal: forcing the company to align with the 1.5-degree target

The attempt, therefore, is to demonstrate an objective liability on the part of the oil company, based precisely on evidence showing that TotalEnergies was perfectly aware of what continuing to extract, produce, refine and sell oil and gas would entail. "We want to force the company to align its strategy with the goal of limiting the rise in average global temperature to a maximum of 1.5 degrees Celsius, as defined by the Paris Agreement".

To achieve this, the first step (and the first demand of the four associations and the City of Paris) is that all new hydrocarbon extraction projects be halted. It is entirely clear, in fact, that if a decision is made to invest heavily in new drilling, new plants or new refineries, the concrete risk is that, in the name of financial returns, they will then be kept running for many years – permanently undermining the climate commitments made by the international community.

The legal action based on French due diligence legislation

The lawyers handling the case intend to ground their arguments in a due diligence law (the duty of vigilance) passed in France in 2017. The law requires all companies with more than five thousand employees to draw up a risk prevention plan covering what are defined as "serious threats to human rights, fundamental freedoms, the health and safety of individuals, and the environment". And this – which represents a fundamental point – applies whether such threats arise from direct or indirect activities.

Sherpa @Asso_Sherpa

𝕏

Auj. débute une audience décisive dans un procès contre TotalEnergies⚖️ Un recours porté par une coalition - dont Sherpa, @NotreAffaire, @FNEasso.

Une condamnation enverrait un message clair👉 les entreprises doivent faire leur part dans la lutte contre le changement climatique.

♥ 3 19 feb 2026 · Apri su X →

TotalEnergies, in its 2024-2025 vigilance plan, does in fact cite only the impacts linked to so-called "scope 1" and "scope 2" – that is, respectively, direct activities and those linked to suppliers and companies operating under outsourcing arrangements. It makes no mention, however, of "scope 3" – namely the consequences linked to the use of products by third parties. In other words, the company has chosen not to account for the emissions caused, for example, by motorists.

TotalEnergies' position: "Holding us alone responsible for an entire system? That makes no sense"

For its part, the French fossil fuel giant appears rather confident: including scope 3 as well, in its view, "would mean making a single oil and gas producing company bear responsibility for the current functioning of the European and global energy system, built by states and companies over more than a hundred years. It makes no sense," the company declared to the daily 20minutes.

Furthermore, according to TotalEnergies, due diligence regulations "do not apply to the issue of climate change". It will be up to the judges to determine whether the fossil fuel company's interpretation is correct or not.