Last updated Nov 29, 2025
Prediction
Chamath
governmentclimatemarkets
If the SEC implements broad Scope 1/2/3 climate disclosure requirements for public companies, it will lead to frequent material‑omission lawsuits (e.g., over alleged non‑disclosure of supply‑chain emissions), generating tens of millions of dollars in legal and expert‑witness spending per major case and primarily benefiting lawyers and consultants rather than producing clear benefits for ordinary investors.
Let's say Apple doesn't disclose what's actually happening in their factories. Somebody can now sue them because they will say that's a material disclosure that you didn't disclose... there will be tens and tens of millions of dollars spent on that litigation... So who really wins? Consultants win, trial, experts win, the lawyers.View on YouTube
Explanation

Chamath’s prediction was explicitly conditional on the SEC implementing broad Scope 1/2/3 climate disclosure rules. The final SEC climate‑disclosure rule adopted in March 2024 eliminated any requirement to disclose Scope 3 emissions and limited Scope 1 and 2 reporting to material emissions by large and accelerated filers, a major scaling back from the 2022 proposal that had contemplated extensive Scope 1/2/3 reporting. (foley.com) These rules were then immediately challenged in court, voluntarily stayed by the SEC in April 2024, and consolidated in the Eighth Circuit, with implementation formally paused while litigation proceeds. (wiley.law) In 2025 a new SEC majority voted to stop defending the climate rule, leaving it effectively unenforced and its future uncertain; in any case, the earliest compliance date (large accelerated filers’ fiscal‑year‑2025 reports filed in 2026) has not yet arrived under an operative rule. (goodwinlaw.com) Because the broad Scope 1/2/3 regime he described was never implemented and no company has yet been required to file under a durable SEC climate‑disclosure mandate, there has been no real‑world test of the predicted wave of material‑omission lawsuits over such disclosures; current climate‑related securities cases instead arise under existing antifraud standards and voluntary ESG statements, not this stalled rule. (jdsupra.com) Accordingly, his conditional claim about what would happen under a fully implemented Scope 1/2/3 disclosure mandate cannot presently be assessed as right or wrong.