Brazil Prosecutors Sue Shell for US$108M Over Floods

The 2024 flood line on the walls of the Mercado Público, Porto Alegre's historic public market. (Photo: Ricardo André Frantz, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons)

CLIMATE LITIGATION · BRAZIL

Brazil’s federal prosecutors have sued Shell Brasil for more than R$541 million (about US$108 million) over the deadly 2024 floods in Rio Grande do Sul. The Shell floods lawsuit, which became public on Friday 9 October, argues that the oil group must pay in proportion to its share of global greenhouse gas emissions. For American investors in Shell, the money is minor, but the legal idea behind it could travel.

The case was brought by the Ministério Público Federal (MPF), Brazil’s independent federal prosecution service, which can sue companies on behalf of the public. Its co-plaintiff is the Instituto Preservar, a non-governmental environmental organisation. The defendant is Shell Brasil, the Brazilian unit of London-based Shell plc.

The filing was first reported by the French news agency AFP, which obtained the court document. Correio do Povo, the Porto Alegre daily, CartaCapital and Exame carried the same figures and quotes on Friday night and Saturday morning.

What the Prosecutors Are Claiming

The suit is an ação civil pública, a Brazilian class-style public action. Prosecutors use it to recover collective damages for the environment, consumers or communities.

According to the filing as quoted in the Brazilian press, its aim is the “environmental-climate civil liability” of the company for the “collective material and moral damages” caused by the extreme weather event that hit the state between April and May 2024.

The prosecutors ask for R$270.5 million (about US$54 million) for environmental damage and what they call climate moral damages. They ask for another R$270.5 million (about US$54 million) for material damage. All conversions use the Central Bank of Brazil’s PTAX rate of R$4.9892 per dollar on Friday 9 October.

The core argument is about proportion. The MPF says Shell Brasil’s liability matches the contribution of its parent group to global warming, which it estimates at 2% of all historical greenhouse gas emissions. The suit cites the company’s “historical and continuing contribution” to emissions from exploring, producing and selling fossil fuels.

“The costs of climate damage should not fall only on society and on those who lost everything in the tragedy,” said Thales Miola, a lawyer for the Instituto Preservar. He argued that large polluters should also answer for the losses they help cause.

Shopkeepers in Porto Alegre’s historic centre clear out goods ruined by the May 2024 floods. (Photo: tetraktys, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons)

Why the 2024 Floods Still Shape Brazil

Torrential rain in April and May 2024 pushed rivers across Rio Grande do Sul to record levels and flooded much of Porto Alegre, the state capital. More than 180 people died and about half a million were forced from their homes, according to the official tallies cited by Correio do Povo and CartaCapital.

IBGE, Brazil’s national statistics office, estimates that about 6.3 million people were affected. Its special flood survey, published on 1 July 2026, found 81,272 homes destroyed and 190,253 badly damaged.

The cost is still moving through the courts. A judge has already ordered the city of Porto Alegre to pay R$50 million (about US$10 million) in flood damages, see Porto Alegre Court Orders US$9.6 Million Flood Damages. The state has also faced fresh storms this year, covered in Rio Grande do Sul Storms Displace 2,686 Across 117 Towns.

What It Means for You

For shareholders, the claim is modest. Shell plc’s shares trade on the New York Stock Exchange as American depositary shares under the ticker SHEL, and a claim near US$108 million is small against a group of its size.

The precedent matters more. Maria Antonia Tigre of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University said it was the first time a national prosecution service had sued a major oil company over a climate disaster.

If a Brazilian court accepts the 2% formula, other prosecutors could copy it for other disasters and other companies. That would add a new line of legal risk for US and European energy groups operating in Brazil.

The theory has partial backing abroad. In 2025 a German court rejected a Peruvian farmer’s claim against the utility RWE, but accepted that large emitters can in principle be liable in proportion to their emissions. Shell also faces a case in the UK brought by victims of a typhoon in the Philippines.

There is a stabiliser too. Brazilian civil cases are slow, appeals are routine and the Shell floods lawsuit is at its first step. No court has ruled on the claim, and Shell is entitled to contest every element of it.

What Is Not Known

The reports do not say which federal court received the suit, on what date it was filed, or which prosecutors signed it. The MPF had not posted a press release on its website by Saturday morning.

Shell’s response is not known. No comment from Shell Brasil or Shell plc appeared in the Brazilian reports.

It is also unclear how the MPF calculated the 2% share, or whether a judge will accept that a Brazilian subsidiary can be held to its parent’s global footprint. These are the questions the defence is likely to raise first.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who is suing Shell over the Rio Grande do Sul floods?

Brazil’s federal prosecution service, the MPF, together with the environmental group Instituto Preservar. They filed a public civil action against Shell Brasil, the Brazilian unit of Shell plc.

How much money do the prosecutors want?

More than R$541 million (about US$108 million): R$270.5 million (about US$54 million) for environmental and climate moral damages and the same again for material damages.

Has a court ruled on the case?

No. The suit became public on Friday 9 October and no ruling has been reported. Shell can contest the claim, and appeals in Brazil usually take years.

Sources: Correio do Povo · CartaCapital · Exame · Central Bank of Brazil, PTAX

Editorial responsibility: Matthias Camenzind, Editor-in-Chief · Editorial standards · Report an error