Law firm Milberg heading 2 high-profile lawsuits in Puerto Rico
The firm is suing oil companies for climate fraud and a marketing firm over a $1.5 million contract.
Law firm Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC is moving forward with two lawsuits in Puerto Rico — one against major oil companies for alleged climate change-related racketeering and another against a marketing firm accused of fraud over a $1.5 million contract.
The climate change lawsuit, filed under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, accuses oil companies of misleading the public about climate change. The case, being heard in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, was allowed to proceed after Judge Héctor Ramos-Vega ruled that antitrust and racketeering claims could move forward.
“We at Milberg are eager to begin the discovery process to uncover the dark money trail that shows how this climate change deception enterprise colluded to deceive the world into believing that climate change was not a real, existential threat,” said Marc Grossman, senior partner at Milberg.
He said the fossil fuel industry “became the architects of choice, designing a future that forestalled clean energy alternatives and deepened our dependence on their products — all while knowing the devastating consequences.”
The court rejected the defendants’ claim that the lawsuit sought to regulate carbon emissions through litigation. Instead, it ruled that the case centers on allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation and public deception, rather than environmental policy.
Marketing fraud case seeks $812K in damages
While its climate lawsuit advances, Milberg is also pursuing a case against Spring Investments Inc., a marketing company accused of fraudulently inducing the firm into a $1.5 million contract for legal client lead generation.
According to the lawsuit, filed in the same federal court, Milberg hired Spring Investments (operating as Media Merchants Group) in 2022 to provide leads for individuals affected by Camp Lejeune water contamination. The firm alleges that Spring Investments misrepresented its ability to deliver qualified leads, causing financial harm.
“Defendants knowingly misrepresented their ability and intent to fulfill the terms of the agreement, thereby inducing Plaintiff to enter into a contract and pay a substantial amount of money under false pretenses,” the lawsuit states.
After failing to meet its contractual obligations, Spring Investments proposed shifting the campaign to target individuals affected by aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) exposure, agreeing to deliver 150 leads at $5,800 each. Milberg claims that only 29 leads were provided, leaving 121 undelivered despite payment.
Milberg formally demanded a refund of $812,000 on Dec. 20, but alleges that Spring Investments has refused to return the funds.
“Despite multiple opportunities to cure their failure, Defendants have neither provided the outstanding leads nor refunded the corresponding portion of Plaintiff’s funds, causing Plaintiff significant financial harm,” the lawsuit adds.
Milberg is seeking a jury trial in the case.
