Key highlights from August 2025 in the sustainability space.
1- California’s Climate Disclosure Laws Clear Major Hurdle
On August 13, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups lost their bid to pause enforcement of California’s landmark climate disclosure laws (SB 253 and SB 261). A federal judge ruled the plaintiffs had not shown their First Amendment challenge was likely to succeed.
The ruling clears the way for mandatory reporting to begin in 2026, with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on track to finalize regulations by the end of 2025. SB 253 will compel companies with over $1 billion in revenue to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions, while SB 261 will require firms generating at least $500 million to report on climate-related financial risks. Although appeals are expected, businesses cannot afford to wait. CARB has signalled initial enforcement may be measured, but California is decisively setting the pace on corporate climate accountability.
2- German Court Calls Out Apple for “CO2-Neutral” Claims
On August 26, a Frankfurt court ruled that Apple cannot market its Apple Watch as “CO2 neutral” in Germany. The judges found that Apple’s reliance on carbon offsets—leasing eucalyptus plantations in Paraguay until 2029—fell short of what consumers reasonably expect: climate neutrality lasting through at least 2050 in line with the Paris Agreement. The ruling frames Apple’s claim as greenwashing and raises broader doubts about the credibility of offset-based neutrality pledges.
The case mirrors a class-action lawsuit in the U.S. and comes as regulators in Europe prepare to tighten scrutiny through the revised Green Claims Directive, due in 2026. Environmental groups, including Umwelthilfe, hailed the decision as a win against greenwashing. Yet, Apple’s approach in this case broadly aligns with prevailing carbon offset practices in the tech sector, raising a deeper question: whether dismantling offset strategies ultimately advances or undermines the path to long-term decarbonization.
3- South African court blocks offshore drilling over environmental risks
On August 14, South Africa’s Western Cape High Court overturned an environmental authorization that had been granted to TotalEnergies and Shell for offshore oil exploration along the country’s Cape coast. The court sided with civil society groups, finding that the project’s Environmental Impact Assessment had failed to address crucial risks, including the socio-economic fallout of potential oil spills on small-scale fishers and coastal communities, as well as the omission of climate change impacts, coastal protection requirements, and cross-border harms. The judges also criticized the lack of transparency, noting that emergency spill response plans had been withheld from public scrutiny.
TotalEnergies must now submit new studies, release contingency plans, and engage in additional consultation before drilling can even be reconsidered. For many observers, the judgment represents a major victory for communities whose livelihoods depend on the region’s marine resources, and it adds momentum to a broader movement resisting offshore oil and gas exploration in South African waters. By placing environmental justice and community voices at the center of the decision, the court strengthened the case for aligning energy development with both ecological protection and long-term climate goals.
4- FTC ends antitrust probe as truckmakers sue California
On August 12, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced the closure of its investigation into Volvo, Daimler, International Motors and PACCAR over their 2023 “Clean Truck Partnership” with California’s Air Resources Board (CARB).
Regulators had raised concerns that the agreement to phase out internal combustion engines and accelerate the rollout of zero-emissions trucks could amount to collusion, restricting output and limiting competition. To resolve those concerns, the companies and their trade association pledged not to enforce the agreement against one another, committed to acting independently in the future, and accepted ongoing disclosure obligations to the FTC.
Yet, the resolution of the antitrust probe quickly gave way to a new legal clash. The truckmakers have filed suit against CARB and Governor Gavin Newsom, arguing that California’s requirements place them in an impossible position by forcing compliance with state-level standards that may conflict with federal law. The case underscores the way litigation has become a central weapon in America’s climate and ESG battles: regulators view aggressive state rules as necessary to drive industry transformation, while companies increasingly turn to the courts to contest what they see as inconsistent or unlawful mandates.
- Content prepared with the help of Defne Fresko Tasci.