This Article brought to you by: Alterrus LLC
A North Dakota jury has ruled against Greenpeace, ordering the environmental organization to pay over $660 million in damages to Energy Transfer, the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline. The ruling stems from Greenpeace’s alleged role in defamation, disruption, and property damage during the high-profile Standing Rock protests of 2016-2017, where thousands gathered to oppose the pipeline’s construction due to environmental and Indigenous rights concerns. Greenpeace has vowed to appeal, framing the case as an attack on free speech and protest rights.
The lawsuit, originally filed in federal court under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act in 2017, was dismissed due to insufficient evidence. However, Energy Transfer pursued legal action in North Dakota state court, where a nine-person jury found Greenpeace USA, Greenpeace Fund Inc., and Greenpeace International collectively liable. The damages, totaling approximately $667 million, are expected to have severe financial implications for Greenpeace, with Greenpeace USA bearing the largest burden of $404 million. Greenpeace has accused Energy Transfer of using a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) to silence environmental activism and intimidate other advocacy groups.
Greenpeace has initiated legal action against Energy Transfer in the Netherlands, leveraging the European Union’s anti-SLAPP Directive. The organization’s General Counsel Kristin Casper emphasized that the group is only getting started in its counterattack, with court proceedings expected in July. Additionally, Greenpeace has successfully defended itself against similar SLAPP lawsuits filed by oil giants such as Shell, Total, and ENI.
The Dakota Access Pipeline spans 1,172 miles, crossing four states — North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Illinois — transporting crude oil from the Bakken shale fields to refineries. The pipeline has faced criticism for crossing under Lake Oahe, a key water source for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, who have long argued that a potential spill could contaminate their water and violate their treaty rights. Energy Transfer, on the other hand, has consistently defended the project’s safety and necessity. The company has also expressed grievances over the protests, claiming that its staff faced daily harassment and disruptions as they worked on the pipeline’s construction, further justifying their legal pursuit against Greenpeace.
