TotalEnergies Appeals Climate Ruling, EU Directive's 0% Customer Obligation Cited

For legal professionals, this appeal is a critical test of the duty of vigilance law’s boundaries and the interplay between national and European corporate sustainability rules. The outcome could set a far-reaching precedent on whether French courts can impose liability for the ultimate greenhouse gas emissions of a company’s products.

TotalEnergies has officially appealed a landmark June 25, 2026 ruling by the Paris Judicial Court that expanded the scope of France’s duty of vigilance law to encompass climate-related impacts from the use of its products. The appeal, approved by the company’s board of directors, directly challenges the core interpretation of corporate responsibility for climate change, setting the stage for a legal battle that could redefine the boundaries of corporate climate liability across Europe and beyond.

“

TotalEnergies has officially appealed a landmark June 25, 2026 ruling by the Paris Judicial Court that expanded the scope of France’s duty of vigilance law to encompass climate-related impacts from the use of its products.

The duty of vigilance law, enacted in 2017, requires large French companies to establish and implement vigilance plans to identify and prevent serious human rights violations and environmental damage arising from their operations, subsidiaries, and supply chains. This case, brought by a coalition of environmental groups, marks one of the first major tests of whether the law can be used to compel oil and gas companies to address climate change—specifically, the greenhouse gas emissions generated when consumers burn their fuels. The Paris court’s decision did just that, ruling that TotalEnergies must include climate risks related to product use in its vigilance plan.

TotalEnergies’ central argument on appeal is that the court extended the law beyond its legislative intent. The company contends that climate change is a global systemic issue that must be tackled by states through international cooperation, not through a corporate due diligence framework designed to address risks within a company’s direct control. Critically, the company points out that the French Public Prosecutor’s Office supported this view during the original proceedings, arguing that climate change falls under the responsibility of the international community of states. This alignment with a government legal authority adds significant weight to TotalEnergies’ appeal and signals potential friction between judicial interpretation and executive branch perspectives.

Moreover, TotalEnergies asserts that the law’s reach should not extend to the activities of its customers. The company emphasizes that it cannot control how consumers choose to use energy—whether in gasoline vehicles, biofuels, or electric vehicles—and that its role is to provide customers with their preferred energy options. Holding companies accountable for customer behavior, it argues, would create untenable legal uncertainty and conflict with principles of legal certainty and the freedom to conduct business. The company also notes that the European Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), which harmonizes due diligence rules across the EU, specifically excludes obligations regarding customers’ activities. This provides a powerful comparative legal argument that the French court’s interpretation contradicts broader European regulatory trends.

The implications of this case are profound. If the Paris Court of Appeal upholds the lower court’s ruling, it would effectively require TotalEnergies—and potentially all major energy companies operating in France—to develop and implement plans that address the entire lifecycle emissions of their products. This would amount to a de facto mandate to manage scope 3 emissions, which for oil and gas firms constitute over 90% of their total carbon footprint. Such a requirement could force fundamental changes in business models, from accelerating the shift to renewables to restructuring investments and potentially even limiting production. The financial and strategic consequences would be immense, not just for TotalEnergies but for the entire fossil fuel sector, as similar cases emerge in other jurisdictions.