Category: 3. Business

Attorney General Kathy Jennings, together with her counterparts in Connecticut and Maryland, led a coalition of 50 attorneys general announcing a nearly $150 million settlement with Mercedes-Benz USA and Daimler AG for violating state laws prohibiting unfair or deceptive trade practices by marketing, selling and leasing vehicles equipped with illegal and undisclosed emissions defeat devices designed to circumvent emissions standards. The settlement also includes more than $200 million in potential consumer relief.

“For nearly a decade, Mercedes sold vehicles that were marketed as clean and environmentally responsible while secretly polluting far beyond legal limits,” said AG Jennings. “This settlement holds Mercedes accountable for deceiving consumers, evading emissions laws, and putting public health at risk. We expect honesty in the marketplace and clean air in our communities. Today’s agreement delivers both meaningful penalties and real relief for affected drivers.”

“Vehicle emissions are one of the largest contributors to air pollution in Delaware, so our air quality depends on properly operated vehicle emission control systems,” said Delaware Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Control Sec. Greg Patterson. “All vehicle manufacturers need to do their part by meeting the emission requirements, and we appreciate Attorney General Jennings and her staff leading this multistate investigation and settlement concerning our air.”

Beginning in 2008 and continuing to 2016, the states allege Mercedes manufactured, marketed, advertised, and distributed nationwide more than 211,000 diesel passenger cars and vans equipped with software defeat devices that optimized emission controls during emissions tests, while reducing those controls outside of normal operations. The defeat devices enabled vehicles to far exceed legal limits of nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions, a harmful pollutant that causes respiratory illness and contributes to the formation of smog. Mercedes engaged in this conduct to achieve design and performance goals, such as increased fuel efficiency and reduced maintenance, that it was unable to meet while complying with applicable emission standards. Mercedes concealed the existence of these defeat devices from state and federal regulators and the public. At the same time, Mercedes marketed the vehicles to consumers as “environmentally-friendly” and in compliance with applicable emissions regulations.
Today’s settlement requires Mercedes-Benz USA and Daimler AG to pay $120 million to the states upon the effective date of the settlement. An additional $29,673,750 will be suspended and potentially waived pending completion of a comprehensive consumer relief program. Delaware will receive $3.6 million through today’s settlement.

The consumer relief program extends to the estimated 39,565 vehicles that had not been repaired or permanently removed from the road in the United States by August 1, 2023. Mercedes must bear the cost of installing approved emission modification software on each of the affected vehicles. The companies must provide participating consumers with an extended warranty and will pay consumers $2,000 per subject vehicle.

The companies must also comply with reporting requirements, reform their practices, and refrain from any further unfair or deceptive marketing or sale of diesel vehicles, including misrepresentations regarding emissions and compliance.
Today’s settlement follows similar settlements reached previously between the states and Volkswagen, Fiat Chrysler and German engineering company Robert Bosch GmbH over its development of the cheat software. Automaker Fiat Chrysler and its subsidiaries paid $72.5 million to the states in 2019. Bosch paid $98.7 million in 2019. Volkswagen reached a $570 million settlement with the states in 2016.

Delaware co-led this multistate investigation and settlement with the attorneys general of Connecticut and Maryland. They were assisted by Alabama, Georgia, New Jersey, New York, South Carolina, and Texas.  The final settlement was also joined by Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and Puerto Rico.

Print

Accolades  |  December 22, 2025

Lexology

Gibson Dunn has been ranked No. 7 in the 2026 edition of Lexology Data 100 Global Elite (formerly Global Data Review 100), which recognizes “the world’s best data law firms.” Highlighted as a “powerhouse in US litigation and contentious work,” the firm was ranked No. 2 in Litigation, and No. 6 for both Investigations and Advisory. The publication added that the “firm is routinely tapped to work for the biggest clients on global and truly business-critical issues.”

In 2013, Martin Trust Center for MIT Entrepreneurship Managing Director Bill Aulet published “Disciplined Entrepreneurship: 24 Steps to a Successful Startup,” which has since sold hundreds of thousands of copies and been used to teach entrepreneurship at universities around the world. One MIT course where it’s used is 15.366 (Climate and Energy Ventures), where instructors have tweaked the framework over the years. In a new book, “Disciplined Entrepreneurship for Climate and Energy Ventures,” they codify those changes and provide a new blueprint for entrepreneurs working in the climate and energy spaces.

MIT News spoke with lead author and Trust Center Entrepreneur-in-Residence Ben Soltoff, who wrote the book with Aulet, Senior Lecturer Tod Hynes, Senior Lecturer Francis O’Sullivan, and Lecturer Libby Wayman. Soltoff explains why climate and energy entrepreneurship is so challenging and talks about some of the new steps in the book.

Q: What are climate and energy ventures?

A: It’s a broad umbrella. These ventures aren’t all in a specific industry or structured in the same way. They could be software, they could be hardware, or they could be deep tech coming out of labs. This book is also written for people working in government, large corporations, or nonprofits. Each of those folks can benefit from the entrepreneurial framework in this book. We very intentionally refer to them as climate and energy ventures in the book, not just climate and energy startups.

One common theme is meeting the challenge of providing enough energy for current and future needs without exacerbating, or even while reducing, the impact we have on our planet. Generally, climate and energy ventures are less likely to be only software. Many of the solutions we need are around molecules, not bits. A lot of it is breakthrough technology and science from research labs. You could be making a useful fuel, removing CO2 from the atmosphere, or delivering something in a novel way. Your venture might produce a chemical or molecule that’s already being provided and is a commodity. It needs to be not only more sustainable, but better for your customers — either cheaper, more reliable, or more securely delivered. Ultimately, all of these ventures have to provide value. They also often involve physical infrastructure that you have to scale up — not just 10 times or 100 times, but 1,000 times or more — from original lab demonstrations.

Q: How should climate and energy entrepreneurs be thinking about navigating financing and working with the government?

A: One of the major themes of the book is the importance of figuring out if policy is in your favor and constantly applying a policy lens to what you’re building. Finance is another major theme. In climate and energy, these things are fundamental, and we need to consider them from the beginning. We talk about different “valleys of death” — the idea that going from one stage to the next stage requires this jump in time and resources that presents a big challenge. That also relates to the jump in scale of the technology, from a lab scale to something you can produce and sell in a quantity and at a cost the market is interested in. All of that requires financing.

At an early stage, a lot of these ventures are funded through grants and research funding. Later, they start getting early-stage capital — often venture capital. Eventually, as folks are scaling, they move to debt and project financing. Companies need to be very intentional about the type of financing they’re going to pursue and at what stage. We have an entire step on creating a long-term capital plan. Entrepreneurs need to be very clear about the story they’re going to tell investors at different stages. Otherwise, they can paint themselves into a corner and fail to build a company for the next stage of capital they need.

In terms of policy, entrepreneurs should use the policy environment as a filter for selecting a market. We have a story in the book about a startup that switched from working in sub-Saharan Africa to the U.S. after the Inflation Reduction Act passed. As those incentives began disappearing, they still had the option to return to their original market. It’s not ideal for them, but they are still able to build profitable projects. You shouldn’t build a company based on the incentives alone, but you should understand which way the wind is blowing and take advantage of policy when it’s in your favor. That said, policy can always change.

Q: How should climate and energy entrepreneurs select the right market “stepping stones”?

A: Each of the “Disciplined Entrepreneurship” books talks about the importance of selecting customers and listening to your customers. When thinking about their beachhead market, or where to initially focus, climate and energy entrepreneurs need to look for the easiest near-term opportunity to plug in their technology. Subsequent market selection is also driven by technology. Instead of just picking a beachhead market and figuring everything else out later, there often needs to be an intentional choice of what we call market stepping stones. You start by focusing on an initial market in the early days — land and expand — but there needs to be a long-term strategy, so you don’t go down a dead end. These ventures don’t have a lot of flexibility as they build out potentially expensive technologies. Being intentional means having a pathway planned from the beachhead market up to the big prize that makes the entire enterprise worthwhile. The prize means having a big impact but also targeting a big market opportunity.

We have an example in the book of a company that can turn CO₂ into useful products. They knew the big prize was turning it into fuel, most likely aviation fuel, but they couldn’t produce at the right volume or cost early on, so they looked at other applications. They started with making vodka from CO₂ because it was low-volume and high-margin. Then the pandemic happened, so they made hand sanitizer. Then they made perfume, which had the highest margins of all. By that point, they were ready to start moving into the fuel market. The stepping stones are about figuring out who is willing to buy the simple version of your technology or product and pay a premium. Initially, looking at that company, you might say, “They’re not going to save the planet by selling vodka.” But it was a critical stepping stone to get to the big prize. Long-term thinking is essential for ventures in this space.

In Fairfax County Public Schools, the district is scaling participation to reach all high school students. In Washington, DC, Amazon and PlayLab hosted a two-day immersive workshop with 60 middle and high school students from Friendship Charter Schools, where students built and tested AI-powered solutions to real challenges in their communities. Other partners are focusing on educator professional development, student innovation projects, or district-wide AI adoption strategies aligned to local priorities.

Press Releases

12/22/2025

Attorney General Tong Leads Opposition to Trump Rollbacks of PFAS Regulations

(Hartford, CT) – Attorney General William Tong today led a coalition of 15 attorneys general opposing the Trump Administration’s efforts to gut data reporting and recording keeping requirements for PFAS forever chemicals.

In a comment letter sent today to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin, the attorneys general oppose rollbacks to PFAS reporting requirements mandated by Congress in 2019 under the Toxic Substances Control Act and promulgated by EPA in October 2023. Under the reporting requirements, manufacturers and importers of PFAS are asked to report whatever information they already know about the PFAS in their products, during a one-time reporting requirement currently scheduled to begin in April 2026. This would include information such as the identities and amounts of PFAS chemicals manufactured, any known effects on human health or the environment, and how many workers are exposed to these chemicals.

PFAS are a group of thousands of manmade chemicals that have been used in numerous consumer products since the 1940s, including clothing, non-stick cookware, food packaging, car seats and strollers, stain resistant furnishings, and floor waxes. But certain manufacturers spent decades hiding that their PFAS were toxic and contaminated human blood; state and federal regulators are still uncovering the chemicals in our everyday household items and the PFAS reporting rule is an important tool to do that.

“PFAS forever chemicals are a toxic menace to human health and our environment. Trump’s latest effort to gut PFAS regulation is an insult to the families, workers, and especially the firefighters who have been disproportionately exposed to these dangerous chemicals. We urge the EPA to abandon this proposal,” said Attorney General Tong.

If adopted, the Trump Administration proposal would shield from reporting over 98 percent of entities that are expected to have relevant, vital information about PFAS under six new carveouts that had been previously considered and rejected by EPA. The proposed new exemptions include: (1) a de minimis exemption for articles with PFAS concentrations below 0.1%; (2) an imported articles exemption; (3) an exemption for PFAS manufactured as byproducts; (4) an exemption for PFAS manufactured as impurities; (5) an exemption for PFAS manufactured as non-isolated intermediates; and (6) a research and development exemption.

Today, nearly all humans have PFAS in their blood. PFAS chemicals are toxic and can persist in the environment indefinitely. PFAS chemicals can travel through the environment, including into drinking water sources, and accumulate in human blood. Even modest releases of PFAS can cause widespread pollution and damage. EPA itself has concluded that many PFAS are known to cause severe adverse human health effects, including increased risk of kidney, breast, pancreas, prostate, and testicular cancers, liver damage, decreased birth weight and birth defects, decreased vaccine response, high cholesterol, and infertility.

TSCA requires manufacturers and processors of chemical substances to maintain records and submit to EPA reports regarding the production, importation, use, and disposal of chemical substances, as well as reports of all existing information concerning the environmental and health effects of each chemical, and information regarding individuals who have been or will be exposed to those substances. Through these mechanisms, TSCA directs EPA to ensure that chemical substances entering or already in commerce are subject to oversight commensurate with the hazards they may pose.

In 2019, Congress established specialized reporting obligations for PFAS under TSCA. Attorney General Tong supported the proposed rule ultimately adopted by EPA in 2023. Now, just two years later, EPA is seeking to gut the rule.

In their comment letter, the attorneys general urge EPA to preserve the integrity of the rule and to continue collection of PFAS data without further delay.

“If EPA adopts its proposal as a final rule, vital information about the types of PFAS used in American commerce and the risks these chemicals pose will remain hidden away, needlessly undermining States trying to protect human health and the environment and undermining EPA’s mandate under TSCA to evaluate and minimize chemical risks, in violation of the APA,” the attorneys general write.

Attorney General Tong has two pending lawsuits against 28 chemical manufacturers responsible for knowingly contaminating Connecticut waters and natural resources and harming public health with toxic PFAS “forever chemicals.” The complaints seek both injunctive and monetary relief—compelling the companies to dispose of their toxic chemical stocks, abate all pollution in Connecticut, disclose all research, and to compensate the state for past and future remediation and testing expenses. The complaints seek tens of thousands of dollars per day in penalties for widespread violations of numerous state laws dating back decades.

The attorneys general of California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington and Wisconsin joined today’s comments, led by Attorney General Tong and Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul.

Assistant Attorney General Christopher Kelly and Deputy Associate Attorney General Matthew Levine, Chief of the Environment Section assisted the Attorney General in this matter.

Twitter: @AGWilliamTong

Facebook: CT Attorney General

Media Contact:

Elizabeth Benton
elizabeth.benton@ct.gov

Consumer Inquiries:

860-808-5318
attorney.general@ct.gov