California’s Clean Truck Partnership Faces Legal Challenges and FTC Invalidation
California’s Clean Truck Partnership to advance zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) for the commercial trucking industry fell under legal attack by both truck manufacturers and the federal government. The challenges to 2023 agreement, under which truck manufacturers committed to 100% zero-emissions vehicles (ZEVs) in exchange for flexibility in meeting emissions requirements, add to the recent loss of the emissions waivers and further weaken California’s efforts to transition to ZEVs.
A group of truck manufacturers sued the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and Governor Gavin Newsom, requesting injunctive relief from enforcement of the state’s emissions standards through the Clean Truck Partnership. The U.S. Department of Justice also filed two complaints in federal courts against CARB regarding the enforcement of the agreement. Additionally, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ended its investigation, which found that the agreement violated antitrust laws.
Truck Manufacturers Lawsuit
On August 11, 2025, Daimler Truck North America, International Motors, Paccar, and Volvo Group North America challenged the enforcement of the Clean Truck Partnership, arguing that the three resolutions that revoke California’s vehicle emissions waiver “statutorily preempted” the emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles and engines.
“Notwithstanding that new legislation, California continues to demand compliance with its heavy-duty emissions standards,” the complaint states. The state has “threatened Original Equipment Manufacturers (“OEMs”) that design, develop, manufacture and sell heavy-duty vehicles and engines…with civil sanctions and unfavorable regulatory treatment if the OEM’s refuse to comply with the State’s unlawful standards…”
The complaint notes that the U.S. Department of Justice issued cease and desist letters to the manufacturers “stating that California’s enforcement of its standards is contrary to federal law” and directing the manufacturers “to immediately cease and desist compliance with California’s preempted and unlawful mandates.”
“Plaintiffs are caught in the crossfire,” the complaint states. “California demands that OEMs follow preempted laws; the United States maintains such laws are illegal and orders OEMs to disregard them. This situation is not tenable.”
The complaint also states that California is trying to use the Clean Truck Partnership to “compel and entire industry to follow California emissions standards that are now in conflict with federal law, and which have been expressly preempted by federal law.”
“The OEMs are in an impossible position,” the lawsuit states. “The OEMs are subject to two sovereigns whose regulatory requirements are irreconcilable and who are openly hostile to one another.” The suit seeks a declaratory judgement that the Clean Truck Partnership violates the federal Clean Air Act and the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution. It also requests an injunction against California from enforcing the agreement.
On August 15, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that it filed two complaints against CARB to end the state’s enforcement of the Clean Truck Partnership. “These actions advance President Donald J. Trump’s commitment to end the electric vehicle (EV) mandate, level the regulatory playing field, and promote consumer choice in motor vehicles,” the department said in statement.
FTC Probe
A day after the truck manufacturer’s lawsuit, on August 12, 2025, the FTC ended its antitrust investigation into the Clean Truck Partnership. The FTC stated that the structure of the agreement raised antitrust concerns, as the four manufacturers in the agreement control “up to 99%” of the U.S. heavy-duty truck market.
Under an agreement with the FTC, the manufacturers and their trade association declared that the Clean Truck Partnership was “unenforceable” and that none of them “has ever or will ever attempt to enforce the Clean Truck Partnership’s terms against another manufacturer.” The manufacturers also agreed not to enter any future “restrictive agreement with a U.S. state regulator or government.”