Nearly thirty years ago, an obscure liability section of law aimed at restricting online porn powered a revolution for the Internet and online commerce. Now, in the age of the AI boom and a global resource crunch, we need the same principle put to use for American energy.
Section 230, tucked within the 1996 Communications Decency Act, exempted online companies from liability for third-party content. Without Section 230, known as the “twenty six words that created the Internet,” the expansive world of cyberspace that we know today simply wouldn’t exist. This law birthed a free-flowing and lightly regulated Internet, free from liability claims, to deliver millions of online services and websites now worth trillions.
As artificial intelligence and advanced manufacturing facilities come on line and energy suppliers rush to meet soaring demand, the same level of liability protection for vital energy producers must be enacted, akin to a Section 230 for energy. Not only would this fulfill President Trump’s promise to “unleash” American energy without irrational barriers and roadblocks, but more importantly, it would nullify the paralyzing climate change litigation industry abusing liability courts to wage lawfare on consumer energy prices.
The boom of data centers and advanced manufacturing facilities will require at least 50% more of all types of electricity. Be it nuclear, solar, or natural gas, a rebalancing of power away from the red tape created by climate litigators is the only way to get the U.S. on track.
In courts from Hawaii to North Carolina, well-funded legal firms are suing oil, gas, and electricity giants to hold them liable for the local and global effects of climate change. These cases seek maximum compensation for alleged consumer harms that go beyond the gas pump or basement boiler.
President Trump has used executive orders to try to curtail the practice, but it isn’t slowing the pace of cases.
According to the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, there are currently 175 lawsuits against energy firms for climate-related harms. Hundreds more invoke state advertising, nuisance, and consumer deception statutes, alleging that energy companies have duped and harmed consumers by not being more upfront about climate impact.
The most recent case to gain notoriety blames oil companies for the wrongful death of a woman who died in the 2021 Seattle heat wave. The lawsuit claims the firms engaged in “deceptive conduct” that delayed the confrontation of climate change and caused a death, a charge almost embarrassing to have heard in a courtroom.
To be clear, meritorious debates about climate change and potential legislative remedies are important and justified when they occur at the right time and place.
However, using judges and juries to assign liability is not only inappropriate but unproductive and even illogical, considering the massive carbon output of population behemoths like China and India.
When oil, gas, and electricity providers dig wells, extract resources to refine, spin turbines, and lay transmission lines, they are generating the energy we need to heat our homes, power our cars, and provide all the necessary elements of a modern life and economy. Though renewable energy remains a key focus, still over 40% of consumer electricity is generated by natural gas turbines.
We can hate and decry energy providers “ad infinitum”, but the fact remains that consumers need fuel for their cars, power for their computers, and for the lights to stay on. Modernity and our own prosperity depend on it.
Subjecting each of these companies, including those that build nuclear power stations, to endless ideological lawsuits means they divert resources toward lawyers and away from engineers and innovators. Instead of making energy production more efficient or sustainable, energy producers must hire attorneys to defend the products they made and sold to willing customers. This applies to clean energy producers as much as those dealing with oil and natural gas.
A potential Section 230-type law is not about “shielding” energy companies from accountability or obligation if they cause harm. Rather, it’s about laying a neutral framework that allows development of the resources and technologies we need now without frivolous lawsuits.
If energy providers operate in good faith and follow environmental laws, they should not face liability for immeasurable “climate harms” concocted in the courtroom. At the same time, companies must continue to face criminal or civil penalties when they violate the law, whether it includes pollution, acute injury, fraud, or deception. Bad actors must be punished.
Heating and cooling homes and fueling transportation to deliver goods at affordable prices is solidly within the national interest. That means we should empower energy firms to meet Americans’ expectations.
America can litigate its way into an energy crisis—or it can legislate and innovate its way out. But it can’t do both.
Yaël Ossowski writes about energy policy and is deputy director at the Consumer Choice Center.