A combination picture shows screenshots from a TV advertisement created in 2010 as part of the ‘We Agree’ campaign by ad agency McGarryBowen for the oil company Chevron Corp. via REUTERS
Sean Corey, a Chevron spokesman, said such lawsuits are “meritless” and “serve only to divert attention and resources away from the collaborative, international efforts that are critical to developing a meaningful solution to climate change.” Most major advertising companies with fossil fuel clients, and the U.S. ad industry’s leading trade group, declined to comment for this story or did not respond to requests for comment. However, in a statement, WPP Plc, the world’s largest advertising and public relations holding company, defended its practices.
In 1997, R.J. Reynolds tobacco company agreed to pay $10 million to settle a lawsuit over a campaign for its Camel brand, which was accused of targeting children. The “Joe Camel” campaign was executed by large advertising firms that also were sued. However, he added, given the “existential stakes” of climate change, advertisers likely won’t escape being sued in the first place. “I fully expect that advertising/PR firms, bankers, insurers, accountants, lawyers, and other professionals that support fossil fuel companies, will increasingly find themselves targeted by lawsuits and pressure campaigns.”The picture is different in Europe, where regulators have taken action against a number of ad campaigns by oil companies.
Futerra disclosed in 2019 that 1% of its revenue was generated by clients involved in plastics or aviation, but otherwise had no high-carbon clients.The American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry trade group, criticized the spate of recent efforts to get advertising firms to ditch the oil and gas industry, saying that they were “divisive” and “unfounded.”