Brazil says Shell caused 2024's worst floods, seeks RM441 million in damages

BRASILIA, 10 OCTOBER 2026 —

BRASILIA — Brazil’s federal prosecutor filed a civil lawsuit on Friday against Shell’s Brazilian subsidiary, seeking US$108 million (RM441.8 million) in compensation for the deadly floods that swept the southern state of Rio Grande do Sul in April and May 2024.

According to court documents, the prosecutor’s office argues that the extreme rainfall that triggered the historic flooding was a direct consequence of climate change, to which Shell’s exploration, production and sale of fossil fuels have contributed. The lawsuit therefore seeks to make the oil giant answer for both past and present emissions arising from its operations worldwide.

The filing follows a collaborative effort between Brazil’s public prosecutor and the local non‑governmental organisation Instituto Preservar. The partnership marks what officials describe as a new phase in climate litigation, aiming to use the courts to enforce corporate accountability for climate‑related harms.

“This is the first time a public prosecutor in a country has sued a major oil company over a climate disaster.” said Maria Antonia Tigre, Director of Global Climate Litigation at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, in an interview with AFP. Tigre’s comment underscores the novelty of a state‑level public prosecutor bringing a climate‑damage suit against a major oil company.

The lawsuit seeks US$108 million in damages, a sum that the prosecutor says covers compensation for both tangible losses – such as destroyed homes, infrastructure and livelihoods – and intangible harms, including psychological trauma and loss of life. The figure was disclosed in the filing and reflects the scale of the disaster, which left almost 200 people dead and forced half a million residents to seek emergency shelter.

Shell, which operates a network of refineries and distribution facilities across Brazil, has previously faced legal actions in other jurisdictions over climate‑related claims. The company is also defending a separate lawsuit in the United Kingdom brought by victims of a typhoon that struck the Philippines, according to the prosecutor’s filing.

Brazil’s climate litigation strategy, as outlined in the prosecutor’s statement, aims to set a legal precedent that could compel other fossil‑fuel producers to account for the environmental and social costs of their emissions. By targeting a specific subsidiary operating in the country where the damage occurred, the case seeks to link corporate activity directly to local climate impacts.

The prosecutor’s office emphasized that the suit is intended to ensure that “The company is responsible for environmental and climate impacts, including material and non-material losses from extreme weather that struck the state of Rio Grande do Sul.” The language mirrors the broader global push for corporate responsibility in the face of increasingly frequent extreme weather events.

While the filing details the legal basis for the claim, it does not specify the timeline for court proceedings or the potential defenses Shell may raise. The prosecutor’s office, however, indicated that the case will proceed under Brazil’s civil law framework, which allows for public prosecutors to initiate actions on behalf of affected communities.

The lawsuit arrives at a time when regional governments across Southeast Asia and Latin America are grappling with the economic fallout of climate‑induced disasters. For Malaysian investors and policymakers monitoring the energy sector, the case highlights the growing legal risks faced by multinational oil firms operating in jurisdictions vulnerable to climate impacts.

Industry observers note that the amount sought – US$108 million – represents a fraction of Shell’s global revenues, yet the symbolic weight of a state‑level public prosecutor pursuing a climate‑damage claim could influence corporate strategies on emissions reduction and climate‑risk disclosure.

The prosecutor’s filing, made public on Friday, signals a willingness by Brazilian authorities to use the judiciary to enforce climate accountability, a move that may inspire similar actions in other countries confronting the costs of extreme weather. The outcome of the case will likely be watched closely by regulators, investors and civil‑society groups across the region.

Related: Shell · Maria Antonia Tigre · Brasilia