Setting Ominous Precedent, Court Tells Greenpeace to Pay $660M to Pipeline Firm

On March 19, 2025, a jury in Morton County, North Dakota, issued a catastrophic verdict against Greenpeace in a high-stakes lawsuit over Greenpeace’s actions during the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) protests, forcing Greenpeace to pay over $660 million in damages to Energy Transfer Partners, the corporation that constructed the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Over the three and a half week trial, Greenpeace and Energy Transfer Partners sparred over the extent of Greenpeace’s involvement on the ground during the 2016-2017 #NoDAPL Water Protectors uprising. At the height of the movement, thousands of Indigenous people and allies converged in North Dakota to protest to protest the construction of the pipeline. The epicenter of the protests centered around the spill risks posed by the crossing of Lake Oahe, a section of the Missouri River and sole source of water for the Standing Rock Sioux Nation.

Energy Transfer Partners sought to hold Greenpeace liable for “inciting” illegal conduct that took place during the protests, business damages as a result of Greenpeace’s role in divestment campaigns against DAPL funders, and defamation damages for statements made by Greenpeace that Energy Transfer Partners regards as false. After being asked for support by Indigenous organizers, Greenpeace USA sent support to protests on the ground, providing solar panels to charge protesters’ phones and issuing a $20,000 grant to support direct action trainings. These direct action trainings covered civil disobedience tactics, including the use of “sleeping dragon” lockboxes to form barricades. Greenpeace sent six employees to the protest camps, but argued in court that Greenpeace personnel never engaged in trespassing or any other form of illegal conduct. According to Greenpeace’s testimony, the two other Greenpeace entities named in the suit — Greenpeace Fund and Greenpeace International, never put employees on the ground at the protests, nor funded the trainings. In the suit, the only allegation made about Greenpeace International was that the organization made false statements in a civil society open letter to pipeline financiers. The letter was not led by Greenpeace and was signed by over 500 organizations.

In total, the pipeline corporation asked the jury to award over $800 million. During the trial, Energy Transfer Partners sought to hold Greenpeace liable for $75.7 million in direct damages from the protests, plus an additional $60.1 million the pipeline corporation expended on additional security. Other claimed damages included costs associated with loan refinancing and pipeline delays. In court, Greenpeace expert witnesses traced the cause of the five-month delay to permitting issues with the Army Corps of Engineers, not to protests. As one of the line items, Energy Transfer Partners sought recovery of the $7 million the company spent on public relations consultants seeking to rehabilitate the pipeline’s image. In addition to recompense for actual damages, Energy Transfer Partners sought punitive damages potentially adding up to over a billion dollars. The jury granted an estimated $700 million of this request.

The suit has broad ramifications in its adoption of a collective liability theory of protest. Holding Greenpeace accountable for illegal actions taken by some protesters and the economic impacts of protests on corporations sends a warning shot to all organizations seeking to provide support to social movements. The suit additionally attempts to hold Greenpeace accountable for spreading “misinformation” — listing a series of politically disputed claims widely repeated and argued within the #NoDAPL movement.

This lawsuit fits with a global trend of corporations targeting environmental organizations for their advocacy, through the use of Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or SLAPP. In SLAPP cases, the plaintiff often does not expect to win the suit on the merits; instead, the powerful corporations and individuals filing SLAPPs hope to intimidate their critics and force them to expend limited financial resources on legal defense. The Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe documented 1,049 SLAPP suits filed in Europe across all categories between 2010 and 2023, many against environmental defenders.

“The purpose of a SLAPP is to punish one’s critics by exposing them to lengthy, costly and stressful litigation,” Kirk Herbertson, U.S. director for advocacy and campaigns at EarthRights International, told Truthout. “That certainly seems to have been the intent all along. I think the difference here is that, in addition to using the litigation process itself to harass Greenpeace, Energy Transfer was also able to maneuver the case through a combination of courtroom tactics and propaganda tricks to position themselves where they had a realistic chance of actually securing a verdict against Greenpeace.”

A Trial in a Hostile Venue

The choice of venue for the suit substantially narrowed Greenpeace’s path to a favorable judgement. The trial was held in conservative Morton County, which voted for Trump by a margin of 75.9 percent to 22.2 percent in the 2024 presidential election. The courthouse is located just 45 minutes south of where the protests were held, and many Morton County residents had direct experience with the #NoDAPL protests. In jury selection, nearly half the jury indicated that they had been impacted.

Ahead of the trial, both sides conducted extensive jury pool survey research. In jury research commissioned by Greenpeace, nearly half of residents surveyed indicated that they could not be fair jurors in the case. (Energy Transfer Partners commissioned a study of their own, which reported that most people surveyed were not impacted. The results from the final juror pool in court indicated otherwise.) Greenpeace filed a petition to move the case to Cass County, where research indicated that potential jurors had fewer interactions with DAPL protests. The judge denied the motion. From the outset, Greenpeace had a tough uphill battle to convince jurors to rule in their favor.

High Stakes for Greenpeace; a Chilling Effect on Civil Society

For Greenpeace, the adverse judgement poses an existential threat. In court filings, Greenpeace wrote that an unfavorable judgement might render them unable to appeal the judgement due to lack of funds. Greenpeace has publicly stated an intention to appeal the case all the way up to the Supreme Court, if necessary, but the court filing indicated that Greenpeace fears bankruptcy, should they be required to pay the $300 million in damages that the suit sought. One of the three Greenpeace arms targeted, the fundraising arm Greenpeace, Inc., reported $40 million in income in 2023. According to Greenpeace USA’s financial audit, the organization had $6.5 million in liquid financial assets in 2023 — less than the amount of damages sought by Energy Transfer Partners for the cost of public relations consultants alone. Greenpeace has successfully fended off SLAPPs before, but the outlook in hostile Morton County represents a dire threat to the organization.

In addition to the hundreds of millions in damages owed, Greenpeace has spent “millions” in legal fees, according to Deepa Padmanabha, senior legal advisor to Greenpeace. While 35 states and Washington, D.C. have SLAPP protections — and some allow for fee recovery — North Dakota has none.

The fallout for civil society could be significant. Many smaller organizations don’t have the funds or in-house legal firepower to fight yearslong legal battles. The danger of SLAPP suits lies in the potential chilling impact across civil society. Organizations providing protest support in hostile jurisdictions may constrain their activities out of fear of being targeted by calamitous lawsuits.

In a press conference, Padmanabha noted, “It’s clear that the intent behind the case is not just to destroy Greenpeace, but it’s to divide and destroy the movement and our right to protest.”

For its part, in a statement to Truthout, Energy Transfer Partners said: “Our lawsuit is about recovering damages for the harm Greenpeace caused our company. It is not about free speech. Their organizing, funding, and encouraging the unlawful destruction of property and the dissemination of misinformation goes well beyond the exercise of free speech.”

Asked by Truthout about Energy Transfer Partners’ statement, Herbertson commented, “They’re using public relations messaging to characterize Greenpeace’s role in a way that is not factual. To punish Greenpeace for some other unidentified people’s actions sends a dangerous message: that anyone who participates in a protest can be punished for anyone else’s actions.”

News outlets across the political spectrum have noted the ramifications of the case for free speech and protest. (The far right site Breitbart ran the headline “Greenpeace Trial Begins in North Dakota in Key Free Speech Case.”)

Challenging the Outcome; Penalizing SLAPP Filers

The U.S.-based entities of Greenpeace — assuming they don’t deplete their legal funds first — intend to take the case to the North Dakota Supreme Court, then to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary. At the North Dakota Supreme Court, the appeal would be decided by a panel of five justices, as opposed to the jury determination at the local level.

On the international front, the Netherlands-based Greenpeace International is seeking remedy through the newly enacted European Union Anti-SLAPP Directive. Clamping down on SLAPPs became a political and advocacy priority in the EU after 2017, when news emerged that assassinated investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galiza was facing 48 pending lawsuits at the time of her murder. Designed to cut off “venue shopping” by SLAPP filers, the directive allows courts in EU member states to block enforcement of adverse SLAPP judgements rendered outside of the EU and recover SLAPP defendants’ legal fees. The Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE), one of the leading advocates for the directive, emphatically endorsed Greenpeace International’s countersuit.

“By invoking the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive, Greenpeace International is not only defending itself but also setting a precedent that could protect activists, journalists, and advocates everywhere,” commented Emma Bergmans, member of the CASE Steering Committee and senior policy advisor and advocacy advisor at Free Press Unlimited, in a Greenpeace press release.

The countersuit will be the first test of the Anti-SLAPP Directive. Reuters noted that it is unclear whether EU and Dutch law would apply to the Dallas-based pipeline company, but advocates of the directive are optimistic. With uncertain options in the U.S., the international approach could open another avenue of recourse for Greenpeace, potentially providing a bulwark against the looming threat of bankruptcy.

Verdict Endangers Free Speech and Protest

Walking out of the North Dakota courthouse, Padmanabha told reporters, “We know that this fight is not over.” In the U.S., any appeals will likely center around whether the jury pool provided the opportunity for a fair trial. Greenpeace’s odds of prevailing in North Dakota, a hostile jurisdiction, were slim. But the case sends a message to other organizations engaging in protest support that they, too, may be liable for millions in damages.

“It’s consistent with other intimidation tactics,” said Herbertson. “The strategy is to target a big name, where everyone else decides to keep their heads down and stay quiet.”

In awarding damages that punish commonplace speech and advocacy — in addition to validating a collective liability theory of protest — the North Dakota jury has endangered core exercise of First Amendment rights. With much of the case centered around the business impacts of Greenpeace’s advocacy, and one of the three Greenpeace branches alleged only to have signed a letter, the lawsuit strikes at protected speech. The success of Energy Transfer Partners’ suit could embolden other corporations to file SLAPP suits, sending a chilling effect across civil society.

As Greenpeace figures out its next steps, the organization has responded to the ruling with a renewed commitment to continuing its environmental defense.

The work of Greenpeace “is never going to stop,” Padmanabha was reported as saying by the Associated Press. “That’s the important message.”