About

State AGs sue ISS over alleged hidden ESG conflicts in proxy advice

Published
Score
8

Why it matters

Four state attorneys general—from Texas, Nebraska, Iowa, and West Virginia—have sued Institutional Shareholder Services, alleging the proxy-advice firm misled investors by marketing its recommendations as objective while embedding undisclosed ESG and DEI priorities. The complaints, filed under state consumer-protection and deceptive-practices statutes, charge that ISS told clients it provided neutral, financially grounded analysis while actually incorporating social and environmental considerations without proper disclosure. The suits also allege ISS coordinated with ESG advocacy groups including Climate Action 100+, Ceres, and The Children's Investment Fund, and provided ESG consulting services to companies it simultaneously rated—creating conflicts of interest ISS failed to reveal.

The lawsuits name ISS's owners, Deutsche Börse and General Atlantic, and reference ISS's prior legal challenges to state disclosure laws, including Texas S.B. 2337, which requires proxy advisers to disclose when recommendations account for nonfinancial factors. Florida's attorney general has filed a similar suit against ISS and Glass Lewis. The full scope of the complaints and ISS's response remain under development.

Proxy advisers influence how institutional investors vote on corporate matters, making this dispute material to the governance market. The cases test whether states can use consumer-protection law to regulate proxy-advice content and disclosure, and whether ESG-oriented recommendations must be labeled as advocacy rather than neutral analysis. Attorneys advising institutional investors, proxy firms, or companies subject to proxy votes should monitor these filings closely, as outcomes could reshape disclosure obligations and state regulatory authority over the proxy-advice industry.

mail Subscribe to Litigation email updates

Primary sources. No fluff. Straight to your inbox.

Also on LawSnap