Delivering Corporate Misconduct

When we go online to order dinner, we are getting a lot more delivered than a bowl of Pad Thai. As they bring in billions of dollars in revenue, leading app-based services such as DoorDash and Grubhub are being compelled to pay out millions in fines and settlements to resolve wide-ranging allegations of misconduct.

As shown in Violation Tracker, U.S. market leader DoorDash has accumulated more than $43 million in penalties. Most of that has come in the past year. In February, the company paid over $16 million to settle allegations by the New York State Attorney General that it misled both consumers and delivery workers by using tips intended for workers to subsidize their guaranteed pay. A few months earlier, DoorDash agreed to pay over $11 million to resolve a similar case brought by the Illinois AG.

Around the same time, the Illinois AG and the Federal Trade Commission got Grubhub to pay over $25 million over its alleged deceptive business practices that harmed customers, delivery drivers, and restaurants. Grubhub, now owned by Wonder Group, allegedly misled consumers about the cost of delivery and the benefits of a Grubhub Plus subscription; misled drivers about the amount of money they could make; and listed restaurants on Grubhub’s app without their knowledge or consent, and in some instances, over their explicit objections.

The other giant of the U.S. market, Uber Eats, accounts for a portion of the $917 million in penalties paid by its parent Uber Technologies. For example, in 2022 the City of Chicago got the company to pay over $6 million to restaurants for overcharging commissions and for listing some establishments without their permission.

Delivery service misconduct is not limited to the United States. Recently, the European Commission fined the German company Delivery Hero, which operates in about 60 countries, the equivalent of $253 million for engaging in anti-competitive practices. As shown in Violation Tracker Global, that brought the penalty total for Delivery Hero and its subsidiaries to nearly $600 million. That includes fines for labor standards violations in Spain, privacy violations in Italy, consumer protection violations in Hungary, and antitrust violations in Chile.

DoorDash has faced legal challenges in its foreign operations as well. Recently, the company was fined the equivalent of about $1.3 million by the Australian government for sending over one million texts and emails which breached spam rules. It is being sued by the Canadian government for allegedly advertising misleading prices and discounts. DoorDash is in the process of acquiring its rival Deliveroo, which was fined by the French government in 2022 for abusing the freelance status of delivery workers.

Similar allegations have dogged other services such as Colombia-based Rappi, which has been fined in its home country as well as in places such as Argentina, Brazil, and Peru. Singapore-based Grab Holdings has paid several consumer protection fines in the Philippines. Last year, the government of India ordered Zomato to pay the equivalent of $90 million in taxes and fines for non-payment of certain taxes.

Food delivery is one of the world’s youngest industries, yet it already has one of the worst records for regulatory compliance. It remains to be seen whether governments can rein it in.

The Other Face of EU Business Regulation

There is a common assumption in some circles that Europe is a regulatory nightmare for business. Resentment toward Brussels bureaucrats was a prime motivating factor for Brexit, and today U.S. high tech firms complain about being pressured over antitrust and data protection issues. Claims about regulatory overreach are part of the MAGA distaste for all things European.

A report I just published with my colleagues at Good Jobs First challenges this depiction of EU practices. Entitled Europe’s Biggest Corporate Lawbreakers at Home and Abroad, the report draws on data collected for Violation Tracker Global to show that in many ways EU regulatory enforcement lags behind other countries, especially the United States.

We found that large multinational corporations based in the European Union have been paying far more in regulatory penalties outside the EU than inside. Since the beginning of 2010, EU companies have paid the equivalent of US$43 billion (about EUR 37 billion) in fines and settlements in cases brought by the European Commission and member-state regulators. This is less than half of the US$104 billion (EUR 91 billion) those companies paid in the rest of the world.

Among the 445 EU corporations included in the analysis, the average company paid $95 million in total penalties for cases brought in the EU, far less than the average of $234 million per company for cases brought elsewhere. Volkswagen, the European company with the most worldwide penalties, paid only $5.7 billion of its $30.3 billion total in the EU.

When the penalties of the EU-based parent companies are looked at by industry, the largest total by far comes from the financial services sector. Of the $58 billion in penalties paid by EU-based financial services corporations worldwide, only 12% involved cases brought by regulators in the EU. Deutsche Bank, the most penalized European bank paid only $1.1 billion of its $16.7 billion total in the EU.

When the penalties of the EU parents are analyzed according to the category of the offense, financial offenses are at the top, with a total of $50 billion. Only 11% of this amount came from cases in the EU.

By contrast, 63% of the $47 billion the companies paid in penalties for competition-related offenses came from cases brought either by the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition or authorities in member states. European regulators also account for most of the penalties paid by EU companies for data protection offenses.

The United States accounts for two-thirds of the total penalties paid by companies headquartered in the EU. Six of the 10 most penalized EU companies in the U.S.—including Allianz, BNP Paribas, and Deutsche Bank–have paid over 90% of their total fines and settlements to U.S. regulators and prosecutors.

In short, there are two faces of EU regulation: In the areas of competition and privacy there is aggressive enforcement with numerous high-profile cases against large corporations with substantial penalties. In other categories, there are far fewer major cases. As a result, large EU-based corporations are facing much lighter overall penalties closer to home than they face abroad, especially in the United States.

This reality is largely being ignored by EU policymakers, increasing numbers of whom are being swayed by the anti-regulatory zealots. Last year, the EU adopted the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, which established more rigorous disclosure requirements about human rights and environmental practices in corporate operations and supply chains.

This year, the EU is backtracking. It adopted an Omnibus package that weakens the reporting rules and limits the number of companies that need to comply. Our report argues that this reversal is a mistake and argues in favor of more robust disclosure and enforcement.

A Company’s MAGA-Style Attack on a Regulatory Agency

Normally, when a company reaches a settlement with a regulatory agency, that is the end of the matter. Gemini Trust, a cryptocurrency exchange, has another idea.

In January, Gemini agreed to pay a $5 million fine to resolve a case brought by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission alleging the company made false statements during an investigation relating to its exchange and futures contracts. Gemini neither admitted nor denied the misconduct.

Now Gemini is attacking the CFTC by filing a pugnacious complaint with the agency’s inspector general. The 13-page document alleges that the CFTC’s Enforcement Division is “out of control and that its culture is toxic.” It claims that agency staffers were “not motivated by a principled application of the law or desire to protect the commodities markets. Rather, these lawyers were driven by a selfish desire to advance their careers by misusing their offices to obtain a high-profile ‘win.’”

Gemini’s complaint criticizes by name the lead CFTC lawyer on the case, who is accused of making false statements about the matter in the bio posted on the website of the law firm he joined after leaving the agency.

The facts of the Gemini case are complicated. I will not attempt to summarize them or assess the validity of the CFTC’s case.

What concerns me is whether Gemini’s move is a sign of things to come as companies feel emboldened by the anti-regulatory rhetoric of the Trump Administration to assail regulators in unprecedented ways. The Gemini complaint incorporates MAGA-style rhetoric by accusing the CFTC of seeking to “weaponize and tilt the scales of justice in its favor” and engaging in “trophy-hunting lawfare.”

It is worth noting that the CFTC case is not the only time Gemini, which was founded by the Winklevoss brothers, known for their legal disputes with Mark Zuckerberg, has run afoul of regulators.

Last year, in a settlement with the New York Department of Financial Services, Gemini agreed to return at least $1.1 billion to customers and pay a $37 million fine to resolve allegations it failed to conduct due diligence on Genesis Global Capital, an unregulated third party that allowed Gemini customers to loan their virtual currency and receive interest payments. Genesis defaulted on its loans and declared bankruptcy in 2023.

Also last year, Gemini agreed to pay $50 million to resolve allegations it misled thousands of investors on the risks associated with one of its investment programs.

Given the way the Trump Administration and Congressional Republicans are boosting cryptocurrency, it is not surprising that a company such as Gemini would feel confident in going after one of the main agencies involved in oversight of the business.

It is unclear what Gemini expects to accomplish with its complaint. The CFTC has already been weakened by the departure of many staff members since the new administration took office. The man Trump has nominated to head the agency is Brian Quintenz, who served as a commissioner during the first Trump administration and who has close ties to the cryptocurrency industry. On his X social media page he describes himself as a “financial freedom advocate.” An analysis published in the National Law Review said that his nomination “portends a potential shift towards a more business-friendly regulatory approach.”

Perhaps Gemini is paving the way for Quintenz, who would initially run the commission single-handledly, to rescind the settlement and return the $5 million. This would be another unfortunate step in the Trump Administration’s effort to rewrite the history of enforcement at the same time that it undermines its future.

The MAGA Makeover of the FCPA

The Trump Administration jumped at the opportunity to lash out at anti-deportation protesters, but for corporate criminals it continues to take a much more lenient position. In the latest in a series of steps that soften enforcement against business targets, the Justice Department just announced its new approach to prosecutions under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

The policy was announced by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who previously represented Donald Trump in the New York State hush money case in which Trump was found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records.

Not long after taking office, Trump signed an executive order that paused all FCPA prosecutions, claiming that the law, enacted in 1977 in response to a series of foreign bribery scandals linked to Watergate, is detrimental to the competitiveness of U.S. corporations.

Blanche’s memo embraces that dubious argument by stating that FCPA cases should not put “undue burdens on American companies that operate abroad.” It also gives priority to investigations that could enhance overseas business opportunities for U.S. corporations or advance U.S. national security. This is effectively turning the FCPA, which was intended to promote honesty in business transactions, into an economic weapon against foreign competitors.

At the same time, Blanche’s policy is intended to weaken the FCPA in three ways. First, the memo directs prosecutors to give priority to cases involving transnational criminal organizations such as drug cartels. The typical FCPA case involves illegal payments by a corporate executive or agent to secure a procurement contract from a foreign government. Drug cartels do not compete for procurement contracts. Blanche’s policy seems like a way to divert resources from cases against corporations.

Second, the policy memo calls on prosecutors to “focus on cases in which individuals have engaged in criminal misconduct and not attribute nonspecific malfeasance to corporate structures.” This ignores the fact that individuals paying bribes are doing so in the interest of their employer and often with their knowledge. Blanche’s policy could enable companies to put the blame on a mid-level officials and escape consequences for both C-Suite executives and the corporation itself.

Violation Tracker documents more than 300 records dating back to 2000 in which corporations paid fines or reached settlements in FCPA cases. If Blanche’s policy had been in effect, most of those companies would have escaped punishment.

A third way in which the Blanche doctrine weakens enforcement is by directing prosecutors to take into account “collateral consequences, such as the potential disruption to lawful business and the impact on a company’s employees, throughout an investigation, not only at the resolution phase.”

This is another red herring. FCPA cases are typically brought against large companies that are easily able to deal with an investigation and the payment of penalties. The median penalty paid by companies in those cases documented in Violation Tracker is only $14 million. There were a handful of very large penalties against corporations such as Goldman Sachs, but there is no indication that the survival of those firms was put into question.

The enactment of the FCPA was a watershed moment in the campaign to promote corporate integrity. Trump’s Justice Department is both weakening its use against domestic corporations and weaponizing it against foreign companies to promote America First policies.

Removing the Wrong Shackles

Over the past decade, Wells Fargo has been a poster child for corporate greed and misconduct. In 2016 the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau revealed that the bank had been ordering its employees to create unauthorized accounts for existing customers in order to generate illegitimate fees.

The CFPB fined Wells Fargo $100 million in what would be the first in a series of enforcement actions and lawsuits that have cost the bank more than $8 billion in penalties for the bogus accounts and other offenses such as improper foreclosures and overdraft fees. Along with those monetary punishments, in 2018 the Federal Reserve took the unusual step of putting a limit on the bank’s ability to increase its assets until it improved its governance and internal controls.

Now, in 2025, the CFPB has effectively been dismantled by the Trump Administration’s anti-regulatory steamroller, while the Fed just announced it is removing the asset limit. According to the bank regulator, “the removal of the growth restriction reflects the substantial progress the bank has made in addressing its deficiencies.”

There are two ways to view this decision. On the one hand, the Fed demonstrated that a penalty other than a fine can be quite effective. While Wells remained capped, its big competitors such as JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America experienced enormous asset growth. Being shut out of the expansion certainly made an impression on the new leadership installed at Wells as a result of the scandals.

On the other hand, the track record of Wells since 2018 has not been spotless. In 2022 the CFPB imposed a $1.7 billion fine on the bank and ordered it to pay $2 billion in consumer redress for a variety of illegitimate practices both before and after the Fed enforcement action. The practices included surprise overdraft fees and improper interest charges on auto and mortgage loans.

In 2021 the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency fined Wells $250 million for unsafe practices related to material deficiencies in its loss mitigation activities.

Wells has also been penalized for misconduct in its securities and trading operations. Since 2019 it has paid over $250 million in fines and settlements to the Securities and Exchange Commission as well as $89 million to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Regulators have punished Wells for its employment practices. The Occupational Safety and Heald Administration, which enforces the whistleblower protection provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, found that the bank had improperly fired a manager who complained about illegal practices and ordered that the manager be paid $22 million in damages. The U.S. Labor Department and state regulators in California and New York have cited Wells for wage and hour violations.

Along with government enforcement actions, Wells continues to face a steady stream of class action lawsuits. In recent years it has paid out large sums in settlements, including $185 million to resolve litigation alleging it improperly put mortgages of struggling customers into forbearance without informed consent during the Covid pandemic, damaging their credit rating.

Wells Fargo may no longer be defrauding customers through the creation of bogus accounts, but it appears unable to avoid numerous other types of misconduct. It thus does not deserve relief from the Fed’s restrictions.  

If any shackles are to be removed, they should be the ones unjustly being imposed on CFPB rather than those properly put on Wells Fargo.

Menacing the Judiciary

It is not unusual for presidents to complain when court decisions go against them. But Donald Trump has expressed his displeasure with a degree of nastiness that is unprecedented. In a Memorial Day social media tirade, he denounced judges ruling against his immigration policies as “sick, and very dangerous for our country” as well as “monsters who want our country to go to hell.”

Such over-the-top rhetoric has raised concerns for the personal safety of the judges and their families. The other issue is how this menacing language may affect the way the jurists rule. It is safe to assume Trump thinks this trash talk may work to his benefit, since attempted intimidation is his modus operandi in just about all situations.

It is worth noting that the federal judges being asked to rule on Trump’s executive orders are not the only members of the judiciary he is confronting. Trump may no longer be facing criminal charges, but his private business interests are embroiled in a variety of lawsuits being heard in state courts.

Those private interests are unprecedented. Trump has blown past all previous norms in his efforts to enrich himself while in office. Apart from the development deals his sons are shamelessly pursuing around the world, the Trumps are using a company called Trump Media & Technology Group to exploit other opportunities.

Trump Media was originally a way to promote the Truth Social platform, but now it is going in other directions. The company, which is majority owned by Donald Trump via a trust run by his son Donald Jr., has just announced it is raising $2.5 billion that will be used to invest in Bitcoin. This comes after the introduction of the $TRUMP meme coin, a sort of digital currency being marketed to Trump backers. The fact that these moves are occurring while the Trump Administration increasingly deregulates cryptocurrency seems to be of no concern.

Because Trump Media is publicly traded, it must disclose details on its legal proceedings in public SEC filings. The latest 10-Q report contains a section on lawsuits that is more than 5,000 words long. It lists disputes playing out in courts in Delaware, Florida, and New York.

 One of those cases was brought by Wes Moss and Andy Litinsky, two former contestants on “The Apprentice” who helped Trump launch Truth Social and now claim that Trump engineered a series of maneuvers that diluted their stake in the company in a way that violated Delaware corporate law.

Lawyers for Trump were recently in court arguing that he should be immune from the state litigation while in office, with one of the attorneys asserting that the case is “a danger to the operations of our national government.”

It is likely that when Trump lashes out at judges, he is at least in part thinking of Lori Will, who is hearing the Moss-Litinsky action and who ruled against Trump Media in another case last year. She is weighing the immunity claim against precedents such as the landmark 1997 ruling in the case involving Bill Clinton and Paula Jones in which the Supreme Court held that a sitting president can be sued for unofficial acts.

Trump does not have as much at stake in these state civil suits as he did in his now-defunct criminal cases, but he does not like to lose–even if it means attacking a co-equal branch of government.

Weaponizing Regulation

Donald Trump has long presented himself as a foe of regulation, and since taking office for the second time he has gone to great lengths to eliminate existing rules, prevent the adoption of new ones, and dismantle entire agencies.

Yet now it appears he has discovered that regulation can be put to good use—not to control corporate misconduct but rather to advance his administration’s ideological aims and to weaken his perceived enemies.

The False Claims Act (FCA) is one of the primary tools used by the Justice Department to address fraud by federal contractors and healthcare providers. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, previously one of Trump’s criminal lawyers, recently sent a memo to DOJ prosecutors saying they should bring FCA actions against contractors or other recipients of federal funds that have diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.

To promote such efforts, Blanche said he is creating a Civil Rights Fraud Initiative with teams of lawyers from the DOJ’s Fraud Division and the Civil Rights Division who would be expected to collaborate with both the U.S. Attorney Offices around the country and other federal agencies.

Blanche’s initiative is an escalation of the Trump Administration’s aggressive moves to depict DEI, which is meant to address racism and sexism, as its own form of discrimination. It is in keeping with a document issued in March by the DOJ and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission warning that DEI could be unlawful. And it goes along with the announcement by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs that it was looking for evidence of supposedly illegal practices in the plans submitted by federal contractors under the Biden Administration to address allegations of discrimination.

The Federal Communications Commission, which has a history of addressing employment discrimination by broadcast license holders, is also targeting DEI. FCC chairman Brendan Carr, an unabashed Trump supporter, has been pressuring companies such as Disney and Comcast over their diversity practices. Verizon won approval for its purchase of Frontier Communications by promising to abandon its DEI programs.

Carr is also using the FCC’s authority over media mergers to assist Trump’s dubious lawsuits against private media companies such as CBS parent Paramount Global. And he has used the power of the agency to try to influence the way the news gets reported. He has, for example, posted tweets suggesting that outlets owned by Comcast might be putting their licenses at risk by failing to depict deportee Kilmar Abrego Garcia as the violent gang member the White House claims him to be.

Carr and Blanche appear to be in the vanguard of an emerging effort by the Trump Administration to use the justice and regulatory systems to attack its perceived enemies in the business world.

Wholesale deregulation is troubling, but just as concerning is the warping of oversight into a weapon against corporations for no legitimate policy purpose. One might expect deep-pocketed companies to use their resources to defend themselves. But for now, it appears they are more likely to join many universities, law firms, and other institutions in giving in to the intimidation.

The Other Corporate Restraints

Donald Trump thinks that young girls should get by with fewer dolls, but there is apparently no limit to the number of regulatory gifts he is offering Corporate America. Long-standing rules are being brushed aside, while laws such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act are not being enforced. Entire agencies such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau have been put in limbo. Investigations launched by the Biden Administration are being abandoned. Trump even pardoned a cryptocurrency company and its founders fined for anti-money-laundering deficiencies.

Big Business is not, however, escaping all oversight. That’s because there are two areas beyond Trump’s control that are still acting as checks on corporate abuses: state government regulation and private litigation.

The U.S. Justice Department may be focusing more on legitimizing Trump’s acceptance of a $400 million airplane from Qatar, but state prosecutors continue to go after misconduct in the business world. This is true even in red states. The Texas Attorney General’s office recently announced that it is collecting more than $1 billion from Google to settle allegations that the company unlawfully amassed private data on users regarding geolocation, incognito searches, and biometrics.

Hawaii’s AG negotiated a $700 million settlement with Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi, resolving long-running litigation over the safety and efficacy of the blood thinner Plavix.

New Jersey’s AG and its Department of Environmental Protection announced a settlement of up to $450 million with 3M to resolve litigation over the company’s role in contamination of drinking water supplies with toxic PFAS substances, also known as forever chemicals.

Meanwhile in the courts, drug distributors McKesson, Cardinal Health, and Cencora (formerly AmerisourceBergen) together agreed to pay $300 million to a group of employee benefit plans to settle class action litigation alleging they contributed to the opioid epidemic in their marketing of the dangerous drugs.

A state jury in Louisiana recently determined that oil giant Chevron should pay $745 million in damages for harm caused to the coastline over many years of drilling activity. In the latest of a series of antitrust settlements in the meat industry, Tyson Foods and two other companies agreed to pay $64 million to settle allegations they conspired to fix prices on pork products provided to food service providers.

Defying the Trump Administration’s campaign to prohibit any efforts to address systemic racism and sexism, private anti-discrimination lawsuits move forward. Google just agreed to pay $50 million to settle allegations that it paid thousands of black workers less than their white counterparts and limited their opportunities for advancement.

A federal judge in California just granted preliminary approval to a class action settlement in which Walt Disney Company agreed to pay $43 million to resolve allegations that the compensation given to women in middle management was substantially lower than what was received by men in substantially similar jobs.

These are but a few of the steady stream of cases being brought by AGs and class action lawyers. It is far from desirable for the federal government to retreat from its primary role in business oversight. But until that policy shift can be reversed, the states and the courts are making sure that corporate misconduct does not go unchallenged.

More Consolidation Is Not What The Oil Industry Needs

Reports have circulated in recent days that UK petroleum giant Shell is considering a bid to take over its rival BP.  Shell’s management is not offering confirmation, but investors and analysts are considering the implications of a possible marriage of two of the remaining oil majors once known as the Seven Sisters.

Such a combination would bring together a pair of companies that have been mired in controversies for many years. BP, of course, is still closely identified with the 2010 Deepwater Horizon catastrophe in which an offshore well blowout killed eleven workers and caused an enormous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The company has paid out more than $30 billion in fines and settlements linked to the accident.

BP’s U.S. operations were also tainted by a massive explosion in 2005 at a refinery in Texas City, Texas in which 15 workers were killed and 180 injured (the facility was later sold to Marathon Petroleum). The company also experienced serious spills at its operations in Alaska.

More recently, in 2023 BP agreed to pay $242 million to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to resolve both air and water pollution violations at its Whiting Refinery in Indiana. The allegations focused on releases of benzene, a carcinogen.

Shell’s biggest controversy has been in Nigeria, where for the past few decades it has faced protests and lawsuits over the environmental impact of its operations in the Niger Delta. In 2015 it paid $84 million to compensate the Bodo community for the effects of oil spills. In the United States, Shell has paid over $1 billion in fines and settlements in cases involving pollution, underpayment of federal leasing royalties, accounting violations, and foreign corrupt practices.

There is no reason to believe that a combined Shell-BP would be any less harmful to the environment. Along with their regulatory and legal infringements, the two companies have a history of participating in trade associations and lobbying groups that resisted regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and promoted climate skepticism. And both companies have been accused of trying to obscure those activities by engaging in greenwashing. Meanwhile, a recent academic study estimated that the major oil companies have caused trillions of dollars in economic harm from their greenhouse gas emissions. BP’s contribution to that amount was put at $1.45 trillion.

Consolidation has long been a way the oil industry dealt with its challenges. Chevron bought Gulf Oil in 1984, Texaco in 2001, and Unocal in 2005. It is now seeking to take over Hess. Exxon acquired Mobil in 1999. Conoco and Phillips Petroleum merged in 2002 to form ConocoPhillips, which in 2024 bought Marathon Oil. 

Oil companies have faced allegations that they use their market power in anti-competitive ways. BP, for example, paid over $300 million to resolve civil and criminal allegations that it manipulated the propane market.

Instead of merging, oil companies should be thinking of ways to transition more quickly from fossil fuels to clean and renewable energy sources.

Identifying the Climate Culprits

A new article in a prestigious scientific journal puts a price tag on the damage fossil fuel companies have done to the earth’s climate through their greenhouse gas emissions. Christopher Callahan and Justin Mankin, writing in Nature, estimate that major petroleum and coal producers have inflicted trillions of dollars in economic harm on the world economy over the decades by helping to generate disasters such as heatwaves, floods, droughts, hurricanes, and wildfires. In the period from 1991 to 2020, they put the total value of that harm at $28 trillion.

They derive their totals by analyzing data on the emissions of 111 fossil fuel producers. About one-third of the harm is attributed to five companies: Saudi Aramco ($2.05 trillion), Gazprom ($2 trillion), Chevron ($1.98 trillion), ExxonMobil ($1.91 trillion), and BP ($1.45 trillion).

Callahan and Mankin are explicit in arguing that their data could be useful in bringing legal actions against the fossil fuel industry. They point out that hundreds of climate lawsuits have been filed but few have succeeded so far.

They foresee greater success in suits that seek to hold specific corporations culpable for specific climate effects. They argue that research advances are making it easier to make those connections and do so themselves in linking the emissions of those 111 fossil fuel producers to extreme heat and resulting economic costs.

Drawing these connections is vital because, among other things, regulatory systems have largely failed both in preventing excessive emissions and in holding corporations accountable for their effects. This is illustrated in the data my colleagues and I have collected from 60 countries in Violation Tracker Global.

In the period since 2010, the 74 oil and gas companies we cover have paid about $41 billion in fines and settlements. Very little of those penalties relate directly to greenhouse gas emissions. BP accounts for the lion’s share of the total at nearly $27 billion, largely in connection with the Deepwater Horizon explosion and spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010.

Among the other corporations in Callahan and Mankin’s top five, the largest penalty total belongs to Exxon Mobil at just over $1 billion. The other totals are: Saudi Aramco ($103 million), Gazprom ($106 million), and Chevron ($587 million). The grand total for the five oil giants is about $29 billion.

Given regulatory disclosure limitations in some countries, these totals may be somewhat understated. Yet they do not begin to compare to the magnitude of the economic harms attributed to the corporations by Callahan and Mankin, which for the period since 2010 can be put at roughly $10 trillion.

This means that the five oil giants have paid penalties equal to less than 1 percent of the climate harm they have caused—and those penalties in most cases do not address the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for those harms.

It thus remains highly profitable for fossil fuel producers to continue with business as usual. Hopefully, the new approaches promoted by researchers such as Callahan and Mankin will tip the balance in the other direction by empowering legal challenges to the industry.