TotalEnergies appeal exposes the new face of climate misinformation

A recent appeal lodged by TotalEnergies against a ruling of South Africa’s Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) may appear, at first glance, to concern a technical dispute over a single advertising claim. In reality, it raises a much bigger question: How should regulators deal with climate misinformation in an age where deception increasingly comes dressed as accuracy?

The appeal follows an ARB ruling that found fault with a TotalEnergies claim promoting reduced carbon dioxide emissions associated with one of its fuel products. The company argues that the statement was supported by testing, technically accurate, and therefore should not have been found misleading.

On the surface, that sounds reasonable. But it misses the central challenge of modern greenwashing. The most effective forms of climate misinformation today rarely rely on outright falsehoods. They rely on selective truths.

A company does not need to lie to create a misleading impression. It simply needs to highlight a narrow environmental benefit while omitting the context necessary for consumers to properly evaluate what that benefit means.

This distinction matters because advertising does not operate like a scientific journal. Consumers do not approach advertisements with the expectation that they must independently investigate methodologies, search for disclaimers, or locate supporting studies before deciding what a claim means. They rely on the overall impression created by the advertisement itself. That principle is already well established in consumer protection law.

Insufficient context

Regulators have long recognised that a statement can be technically accurate and still be misleading when presented without sufficient context. Tobacco companies once promoted “light” cigarettes using scientifically defensible measurements while creating the broader impression that those products were safer. Financial services providers have been required to disclose risks because highlighting potential returns without explaining limitations can mislead consumers even when every statement is factually correct.

Climate-related advertising presents the same challenge. A fossil fuel company may accurately state that a fuel product performs better under specific testing conditions. It may accurately state that one fossil fuel emits less carbon than another. It may accurately highlight investments in renewable energy or emissions reduction initiatives.

Yet consumers may still be left with a fundamentally inaccurate understanding of the company’s overall environmental impact. That is why the TotalEnergies appeal is significant.

The company argues that regulators are effectively imposing new requirements by expecting environmental claims to be accompanied by qualifications, limitations, or explanatory context. Yet this argument reveals precisely why stronger oversight is needed. If consumers need to search elsewhere for critical information before understanding a claim properly, then the claim itself is not providing meaningful transparency.

The question facing regulators is therefore not whether evidence exists somewhere in the background. The question is whether consumers receive enough information at the point of communication to make informed judgments. This debate extends far beyond a single company or a single complaint.

Around the world, regulators are grappling with how to address a new generation of greenwashing practices that rely less on false claims and more on strategic omissions. Environmental marketing increasingly emphasises isolated positive attributes while obscuring broader environmental realities. The result is a public discourse where consumers are encouraged to focus on marginal improvements while remaining unaware of the larger climate impacts associated with the products being promoted. The stakes are particularly high in Africa.

As fossil fuel companies seek new markets and new sources of extraction across the continent, they are investing heavily in narratives that portray oil and gas expansion as compatible with sustainable development, energy access, and climate goals. Advertising and public relations campaigns have become important tools for maintaining the social licence of an industry facing growing scrutiny elsewhere in the world.

Information integrity

This makes climate information integrity a governance issue, not merely a communications issue. The ability of communities, policymakers, investors and consumers to make informed decisions depends on access to information that is not only technically accurate, but also complete, contextualised and understandable.

The appeal also raises broader questions about the effectiveness of current regulatory systems. Recent years have seen multiple instances where fossil fuel companies have withdrawn, amended, or appealed against advertising claims once challenged. While these outcomes can be viewed as victories for accountability, they also expose a limitation in existing regulatory frameworks.

What happens when a misleading claim is withdrawn only after it has already influenced public opinion? What happens when companies face little consequence beyond removing an advertisement after being challenged? What happens when appeals become part of a strategy to delay accountability?

These questions point toward the need for regulatory innovation. Future reforms could include public registers of environmental advertising rulings, corrective disclosure requirements, enhanced standards for high-emitting industries, and stronger mechanisms to address repeat offenders. The objective should not be to punish companies for communicating with the public. It should be to ensure that environmental claims contribute to informed decision-making rather than confusion.

The significance of the TotalEnergies appeal therefore lies not in the specific wording of a single advertisement. It lies in the precedent it may establish for how environmental claims are evaluated in the future. At its core, this is a contest over what kind of information environment society wants to create.

A higher standard

Should climate-related advertising merely avoid outright falsehoods?

Or should it meet a higher standard that ensures consumers receive information that is genuinely informative, transparent and capable of supporting democratic decision-making?

As climate change accelerates and fossil fuel expansion continues across Africa, that distinction may become one of the most important regulatory questions of our time. The future of climate accountability will not be decided solely in courtrooms, parliaments, or international climate negotiations. It will also be decided in advertising standards bodies, consumer protection agencies, and information governance institutions.

The TotalEnergies appeal is a reminder that the fight against climate misinformation is entering a new phase. The question is no longer whether companies can tell the truth. The question is whether they can tell only part of it. DM