On May 12, the New Zealand government announced plans to amend existing climate legislation, with the stated aim of explicitly prohibiting courts from holding companies legally liable for climate change damages caused by greenhouse gas emissions in private litigation. New Zealand's Justice Minister, Paul Goldsmith, stated that the government will introduce amendments to the Climate Change Response Act 2002. This amendment will apply to all current and future legal proceedings, including a case currently before the High Court against six major emitters, such as Fonterra. The case, originally scheduled for next year, involves plaintiffs alleging that the companies' emissions have damaged their land rights and cultural heritage. Goldsmith emphasized that such litigation is undermining business confidence and investment. He argued that climate change should be managed through parliamentary frameworks, the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), and existing climate legislation. Goldsmith reiterated that "courts are not the appropriate venue for resolving climate change damage claims" and stated that traditional tort law is not suited to address complex issues where environmental, economic, and social factors are deeply intertwined. The New Zealand government also clarified that the legal revision would not alter the government's established responsibilities under climate legislation, nor would it exempt companies from their obligations under the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). Globally, there has been a significant increase in lawsuits seeking to hold companies accountable for emissions. Similar cases have emerged in Europe, the United States, and Australia, continuously challenging the legal boundaries of corporate social responsibility. Reacting to the New Zealand government's latest move, the international environmental organization ClientEarth expressed concern. It cited principles from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), stating that nations have a legal obligation to address climate damage and that the public should have the right to test these obligations through judicial avenues.