Earlier quoted context omitted.
The suit alleges that the investors were defrauded - not the public, or some such. (That would also be absurd, but it isn't relevant anyway, so no point arguing about it.) But the investors made lots of money. It doesn't make sense. The idea that anything Exxon did had a major influence on the debate about the effect of CO2 on climate is ridiculous. Many billions of dollars have been spent on climate research by gove…
Fraud is making money by lying. The fact that the investors made money doesn't negate the fraud. They were unaware of risks that the company knew about. Public companies (emphasis on public ) are required to reveal to all investors the risks of investing in the company. Read any prospectus and you will see that they don't generally hold back, and in many cases go into specific and extensive detail on known risks.
Now, it is true that companies sometimes state widely known information in their annual reports. Things like "the company's profitability could be affected by a change in consumer tastes that reduces demand for our product". (Not followed by any actual analysis of how likely this is, I note.) I assume such nonsense is due to lawyers trying to defend against other lawyers whose ethics don't deter them from filing lawsuits like this one.