JUNE 30, 2026

Legal ESG — 2026-06-30

The week of June 23–30, 2026 crystallized an increasingly bifurcated ESG legal landscape: Europe accelerated its regulatory architecture while U.S. federal institutions continued to retreat, creating a compliance patchwork that counsel must navigate jurisdiction by jurisdiction. The Paris court's TotalEnergies ruling extended France's duty-of-vigilance law to Scope 3 climate risk — a first — while the EU Council locked in its SFDR 2.0 negotiating position, moving greenwashing guardrails for sustainable finance one step closer to law. In the United States, the SEC formally proposed rescinding its climate disclosure rules even as California deferred but preserved its own GHG reporting deadline, and federal courts handed proxy advisers a third straight win against Republican anti-ESG legislation. At the same time, the UK's new Crime and Policing Act 2026 expanded corporate criminal liability to all offences — including Modern Slavery Act violations — effective June 29, with direct supply-chain consequences for multinational clients.

Regulation & Disclosure

California Pushes SB 253 Deadline to November — But the Obligation Stands

California's Air Resources Board announced on June 24 that the initial GHG emissions reporting deadline under SB 253 (the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act) would shift from August 10 to November 10, 2026, giving large companies additional time to prepare their first Scope 1 and 2 submissions. CARB simultaneously withdrew its current rulemaking text and announced a forthcoming updated regulation with a 15-day public comment period. Scope 3 reporting remains deferred to 2027, and CARB will exercise enforcement discretion for good-faith first-year filers — but companies that were not collecting emissions data as of December 2024 must submit a statement on company letterhead explaining the gap. The federal backdrop sharpens the stakes: the SEC formally proposed rescinding its 2024 climate disclosure rules on May 29, and if finalized that rescission would eliminate any federal floor, leaving California as the de facto national compliance anchor for companies with over $1 billion in U.S. revenue. For in-house teams, the three-month window is narrow; counsel advising companies doing business in California should treat November 10 as a hard deadline even as they monitor CARB's forthcoming revised regulations and portal guidance.

Source: WilmerHale: Climate Disclosure Update — Six Weeks to Go Before California's First GHG Emissions Reporting Deadline Headline — Regulation & Disclosure WilmerHale: Climate Disclosure Update ↗ · article: articles/2026-06-30-california-sb253-deadline-extension.md · tags: Legal ESG, Legal Risk, Legal Operations

EU Council Locks In SFDR 2.0 Negotiating Position — Fossil Fuels Permitted in Transition Funds

On June 24, the Council of the European Union agreed its official negotiating position on SFDR 2.0, overhauling the sustainable finance disclosure framework around a new three-tier product classification system: Sustainable (highest standards), Transition (credible decarbonization pathway), and ESG Basics (general integration). The Council's position includes a significant concession: fossil fuel companies can qualify for the Transition category provided at least 20% of capital expenditure is aligned with the EU Taxonomy and a time-bound emissions reduction strategy is in place. Financial market participants in the Sustainable and Transition categories must disclose against at least three principal adverse impact indicators from a Commission-issued list. Alternative investment funds marketed exclusively to professional investors are exempted from mandatory categorization — a notable carve-out for private markets. Trilogue cannot begin until the European Parliament adopts its own position, making final text unlikely before 2027. For fund managers and their legal advisers, the Council text is the definitive signal for portfolio repositioning and prospectus redrafting work — the fossil fuel carve-out in particular will require careful documentation of Capex allocation and GHG reduction strategies to withstand regulatory scrutiny and investor challenge.

Source: ESG Post: EU approves new greenwashing defences and triple-category system for sustainable finance Headline — Regulation & Disclosure ESG Post: EU SFDR 2.0 Council Position ↗ · article: articles/2026-06-30-sfdr-2-0-council-position.md · tags: Legal ESG, Legal Risk, Legal Operations

Climate & Litigation

Paris Court Orders TotalEnergies to Revise Vigilance Plan — First Climate Application of French Due Diligence Law

The Paris Judicial Court ruled on June 25 that TotalEnergies' Scope 3 emissions — those generated when customers burn its oil and gas products, representing roughly 90% of the company's carbon footprint — fall within the scope of France's 2017 corporate duty of vigilance law. The court did not impose binding production cuts or a fine; instead, it ordered TotalEnergies to publish a revised vigilance plan within six months that properly assesses climate risk and includes adequate mitigation measures, with a compliance hearing set for January 21, 2027. If the revised plan is found insufficient, further measures could follow. Notably, the court tied its reasoning to the EU's Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, finding that climate obligations fall within CSDDD scope even after Omnibus I stripped an explicit climate transition plan requirement. This is the first time a court has applied France's duty of vigilance to climate change and the first to bring Scope 3 emissions into a company's legal due diligence perimeter. For multinational companies with significant fossil fuel exposure, and for counsel advising them, the ruling reframes climate risk disclosure from best practice to legal obligation — and the January 2027 compliance hearing creates a live enforcement docket to watch.

Source: Reuters: TotalEnergies must address climate risks linked to its products, French court rules Headline — Climate & Litigation Reuters: TotalEnergies Climate Ruling ↗ · article: articles/2026-06-30-totalenergies-paris-climate-ruling.md · tags: Legal ESG, Legal Risk, Legal Operations

LSE Grantham Institute: Climate Litigation Hits 3,600 Cases — Data Centers the Next Frontier

The Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics published its Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2026 Snapshot on June 25, documenting 249 new cases filed in 2025 and a total corpus of more than 3,600 cases across 62 countries — up from 17 countries a decade ago. Twenty percent of U.S. cases filed in 2025 constitute "protective litigation" resisting Trump administration regulatory rollbacks, described by the authors as "without precedent." More than 50 strategic cases were filed against companies in the energy, finance, transport, real estate, and consumer goods sectors in 2025, and 2025 saw the first cases of insurance companies seeking to recover climate-related financial losses from governments. The report's most forward-looking finding for corporate counsel: data centers are the next major climate litigation target, with cases already filed in Chile, the United States, Ireland, and the United Kingdom challenging energy use, water consumption, and inadequate environmental review. For ESG practice groups advising technology, infrastructure, and finance clients, this signals that climate litigation exposure now extends well beyond fossil fuel companies — any company with a large data center footprint or significant AI infrastructure investment should be modeled for litigation risk.

Source: LSE Grantham Research Institute: Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation — 2026 Snapshot Headline — Climate & Litigation LSE Grantham: 2026 Climate Litigation Snapshot ↗ · article: articles/2026-06-30-lse-climate-litigation-2026-snapshot.md · tags: Legal ESG, Legal Risk, Legal Operations

Supply Chain & Human Rights

UK Crime and Policing Act 2026: Corporate Criminal Liability Expands to All Offences — Including Modern Slavery

Effective June 29, 2026, Section 250 of the UK's Crime and Policing Act 2026 (CPA) replaced the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023's senior manager provisions with a far broader regime: companies incorporated anywhere in the world are now criminally liable for any UK criminal offence committed by a "senior manager" acting within the actual or apparent scope of their authority. Critically, there is no "reasonable procedures" defence available — unlike the Failure to Prevent Fraud offence — meaning a compliance program mitigates prosecution risk but does not provide a statutory shield. The regime explicitly captures Modern Slavery Act violations (slavery, servitude, forced labour, human trafficking) and environmental protection offences, making it a direct supply chain liability mechanism. The "senior manager" definition is deliberately broad and extends beyond C-suite to include individuals in operations, legal, HR, and compliance who play a significant role in managing a substantial part of the business. For international companies with UK operations or senior managers conducting business subject to UK law, this is a material upgrade in criminal exposure: lawyers advising multinational clients should immediately map senior manager populations, conduct a gap analysis against Modern Slavery Act and Environmental Protection Act obligations, and implement role-specific training and escalation controls.

Source: McDermott Will & Emery: The UK Crime & Policing Act 2026 — A Huge Expansion of Corporate Criminal Liability Headline — Supply Chain & Human Rights McDermott Will & Emery: UK Crime and Policing Act 2026 ↗ · article: articles/2026-06-30-uk-crime-policing-act-corporate-liability.md · tags: Legal ESG, Legal Risk, Legal Operations

EU Commission Opens CSDDD Implementation Consultation — Final Guidelines Not Due Until Q1 2027

The European Commission launched a consultation running to July 24, 2026, seeking stakeholder input on implementation guidelines for the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive following its modification by Omnibus I. The guidelines are intended to address voluntary model contract clauses, due diligence processes and risk factors, digital tools, data sources, third-party verification, and sanctions — covering both large EU companies (over 5,000 employees and €1.5 billion turnover) and non-EU companies with over €1.5 billion in EU revenue. Final guidelines are not expected until Q1 2027, but three EU member states — the Netherlands, Germany, and Sweden — issued a joint non-paper this week pressing the Commission to accelerate practical guidance, arguing that CSDDD's success depends on clear, workable standards rather than late-arriving compliance architecture. The phased implementation timeline (transposition by July 2028, application from July 2029) means in-scope companies have a window, but counsel advising multinational clients should treat the consultation period as a live opportunity: the Commission's final guidance will shape national transposition and enforcement, and companies with operational supply chain data should consider filing comments to influence definitions of "appropriate measures" and third-party verification thresholds.

Source: Debevoise & Plimpton: ESG Update — June 24, 2026 Headline — Supply Chain & Human Rights Debevoise: ESG Update June 24, 2026 ↗ · article: articles/2026-06-30-csddd-implementation-consultation.md · tags: Legal ESG, Legal Risk, Legal Operations

Governance

DOJ and FTC File First Antitrust Brief Targeting ESG Coordination — Texas v. BlackRock

On May 22, the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission filed a joint Statement of Interest in the Texas Attorney General's case against BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard — becoming, for the first time in a U.S. court filing, the federal government's explicit position that industry-wide ESG coordination can violate the antitrust laws. The agencies advanced two theories: under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, minority share acquisitions by ESG-minded investors can be retrospectively challenged if post-acquisition conduct damages competition; and under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the fact that an alleged agreement relates to "climate" issues does not insulate it from the concerted action prohibition. The agencies dismissed the defendants' "solely for investment" passive investor defense as masking anticompetitive conduct "behind the veil of passive investing and good governance principles." For asset managers, institutional investors, and the law firms advising them, this brief signals that ESG stewardship activities — voting, engagement, participation in net-zero alliances — face a live and expanding antitrust scrutiny lens. Counsel should audit client participation in any multi-firm ESG initiative for information-sharing or alignment on investee company strategy before those practices become investigation targets.

Source: Axinn Veltrop & Harkrider: The Texas v. BlackRock ESG Case — The FTC and DOJ Have Entered the Chat Headline — Governance Axinn: DOJ/FTC Antitrust Brief in Texas v. BlackRock ↗ · article: articles/2026-06-30-doj-ftc-esg-antitrust-texas-blackrock.md · tags: Legal ESG, Legal Risk, Legal Operations

Enforcement & Greenwashing

Proxy Advisers Score Third Legal Win as Indiana Anti-ESG Disclosure Law Blocked

On June 29, U.S. District Judge Matthew Brookman for the Southern District of Indiana granted a preliminary injunction blocking an Indiana law — set to take effect July 1 — that required proxy advisers to attach a "written financial analysis" to any voting recommendation against company management, or disclose that no such analysis had been conducted. The court found the law constituted "viewpoint discrimination" because it imposed disclosure burdens only when proxy firms disagreed with management. ISS and Glass Lewis had also previously obtained injunctions against similar laws in Texas and Kansas. The ruling preserves the ability of proxy advisers to issue governance and ESG recommendations without state-compelled disclosure obligations, a critical operational question for the governance infrastructure that mediates ESG-related shareholder votes at public companies. For GCs and governance counsel, the broader pattern is clear: Republican state-level anti-ESG legislation targeting governance intermediaries has consistently failed First Amendment review, reinforcing that proxy adviser access to capital markets governance processes remains legally protected even as the political environment intensifies.

Source: Reuters: Proxy advisers notch third legal win staving off Republican 'anti-ESG' rules Headline — Enforcement & Greenwashing Reuters: Proxy Advisers Third Legal Win ↗ · article: articles/2026-06-30-proxy-advisers-indiana-injunction.md · tags: Legal ESG, Legal Risk, Legal Operations

California Tightens Recyclability Claims — October Deadline Carries Greenwashing Exposure

On June 29, ArentFox Schiff published a compliance alert flagging that California's SB 343 applies to all products manufactured after October 4, 2026: companies must either verify their products meet quantitative recyclability criteria (including 60% consumer access to recycling collection and 60% of California recycling systems sorting the material) or remove recyclability claims — including the ubiquitous "chasing arrows" symbol. Companies must maintain written records supporting any remaining recycling claims and make those records available to the public on request; those records are explicitly usable in enforcement or greenwashing suits by the attorney general, other state officials, or private plaintiffs. With more than 400 greenwashing enforcement actions recorded globally in 2026 and the EU's Green Claims Directive moving toward effect, California's October deadline adds a concrete, near-term compliance trigger for consumer goods, packaging, and retail clients. Product counsel and advertising counsel should align on a joint SB 343 audit before October 4 — the public records requirement means noncompliance creates a ready-made evidence base for private plaintiffs.

Source: ArentFox Schiff: California Becomes First State to Condition Recyclability Claims on Achieving Recyclability Criteria Headline — Enforcement & Greenwashing ArentFox Schiff: California SB 343 Recyclability Claims ↗ · article: articles/2026-06-30-california-sb343-recyclability-greenwashing.md · tags: Legal ESG, Legal Risk, Legal Operations

Law Firm ESG Practice

ESG M&A Risk Allocation Evolving — Deal Teams Must Map Regulatory Divergence Into Transaction Documents

Stinson LLP partners published an article in the New York Law Journal this week examining how ESG considerations are reshaping risk allocation and deal structuring in mergers and acquisitions. The analysis arrives as the regulatory environment creates genuine asymmetry between U.S. and European ESG regimes — California GHG reporting obligations, EU CSDDD supply chain liability, and potential U.S. antitrust scrutiny of ESG coordination all represent deal-level liabilities that require targeted representations, warranties, and indemnification language rather than boilerplate sustainability schedules. At the same time, Sejong Law Firm in Seoul launched a dedicated Corporate Governance Research Institute this week combining M&A, governance, and capital markets ESG expertise under a single practice umbrella — an organizational model that illustrates how ESG complexity is driving integration of what were previously siloed practice areas. For law firm ESG practice leaders, the transactional implications of ESG regulation are now a revenue-generating imperative: integration of regulatory mapping (CSDDD scope, SB 253 coverage, California greenwashing), litigation risk analysis (climate duty of vigilance, proxy adviser exposure), and deal documentation into M&A due diligence is the practice architecture clients need and competitors are building.

Source: Stinson LLP: Bowling, Respeliers and Hilton Examine How ESG Considerations Are Reshaping M&A Deal Terms Headline — Law Firm ESG Practice Stinson: ESG Reshaping M&A Deal Terms ↗ · article: articles/2026-06-30-esg-ma-deal-terms-risk-allocation.md · tags: Legal ESG, Legal Risk, Legal Operations

Upcoming Events

Legal Business ESG Summit — September 15, 2026, London. Litigation, green claims, and AI for the legal-leadership agenda. legalesg.com/events
TISFD Feedback Deadline — July 31, 2026. Comment period closes on the Taskforce on Inequality and Social-related Financial Disclosures' first draft framework for people-related disclosures. Debevoise ESG Update
EU CSDDD Guidelines Consultation Deadline — July 24, 2026. Companies, value-chain partners, financial sector participants, and authorities may file comments with the European Commission on the CSDDD implementation guidelines. EU Commission Consultation
USTR Section 301 Forced Labor Tariff Hearing — July 7, 2026 (written comments due July 6). Public hearing before the Section 301 Committee on proposed 10%–12.5% tariffs on goods from 60 economies found not to enforce forced labor import restrictions. USTR Section 301 Forced Labor

Inside Practice · Legal ESG · Week of 2026-06-23 to 2026-06-30