A court orders Greenpeace to pay 660 million euros. The charge? Defending the environment and the rights of indigenous peoples.
An unprecedented ruling has struck Greenpeace in the United States: a North Dakota court has ruled that the environmental organisation must pay 660 million dollars in damages to Energy Transfer, a Texas-based oil industry giant. The lawsuit stems from the 2016 and 2017 protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), a pipeline at the centre of a lengthy battle between energy companies, indigenous communities and environmental activists.
The jury at the Mandan courthouse upheld Energy Transfer's accusations, which held Greenpeace responsible for orchestrating a disinformation campaign and damaging the company's reputation. The organisation, which had already flagged the risk of financial collapse in the event of a conviction, has announced it will appeal the verdict, which many consider a threat to freedom of expression and environmental advocacy.
The Dakota Access Pipeline, the infrastructure that transports crude oil extracted from the Bakken formation (spanning Montana and North Dakota) to Illinois, has faced fierce opposition since its planning stages. In particular, the Standing Rock Sioux community and several environmental groups had raised concerns about the risk of contaminating the Missouri River and the violation of sacred Native American territories. The protests drew international attention, with thousands of activists, public figures and members of other indigenous tribes taking part.
Although the pipeline's route was subsequently modified, tensions never fully subsided. Clashes between protesters and law enforcement, arrests and material damage marked the mobilisations, prompting the companies involved to pursue legal action against opponents.
In 2019, Energy Transfer filed a lawsuit against Greenpeace, claiming that the NGO had deliberately spread false information about the project, thereby causing the company financial harm. The charges — which include trespassing, defamation and conspiracy — resulted in one of the heaviest penalties ever imposed on an environmental organisation.
The environmental organisation has reiterated that the case represents an attempt by major fossil fuel companies to silence dissenting movements through unfounded lawsuits, known as SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation). "It is an attack on free speech and indigenous sovereignty," said Mads Christensen, Executive Director of Greenpeace International. "We will not be intimidated and will continue our legal battle until we prevail."
This lawsuit, one of the largest ever brought under the so-called SLAPPs, sits within a broader context of regression: "We are witnessing the return of irresponsible behaviour that fuelled the climate crisis, reinforced environmental racism and put fossil fuel profits ahead of public health and a liveable planet. The Trump administration spent four years dismantling protections for clean air, clean water and indigenous sovereignty, and now its allies want to finish the job by silencing protest. We will not give up, we will not be silenced," Christensen concluded.
For more than seven years, Greenpeace has denounced how these lawsuits form part of a broader attack on the rights enshrined in the First Amendment. Currently, 16 US states, including North Dakota, have no anti-SLAPP laws in place to protect activists.
But the final word has yet to be spoken. At the international level, Greenpeace International launched its first legal action under the European Union's anti-SLAPP Directive in February 2024, taking Energy Transfer to court in the Netherlands to recover damages suffered as a result of the unfounded lawsuits filed in the United States. "Energy Transfer has not yet settled its accounts with us. This is just the beginning of our legal battle against its attacks on free speech and peaceful protest," said Kristin Casper, General Counsel of Greenpeace International. The next hearing is scheduled for July in the Netherlands.