By that logic everything that has any positive externality at all would be legal. The plaintiffs specifically argue that the companies behaved recklessly motivated by profit seeking. They actively misled the public about a negative externality associated with their product. That is basically the same argument that plaintiffs made against tobacco companies. Cigarettes were legal, they brought satisfaction to consumers, but the producers actively misled their customers about negative side effects in a reckless manner.
Cigarettes are still legal and oil should remain so but the price of oil should include its cost to society, not only profit maximization considerations.
