A North Dakota jury has found Greenpeace guilty of defamation, ordering the environmental organization t pay more than $660 million (£507 million) in damages to Energy Transfer, an oil company involved in the Dakota Access Pipeline project. The lawsuit, filed by the Texas-based company, also accused Greenpeace of trespass, nuisance, and civil conspiracy over its role in one of the largest anti-fossil fuel protests in U.S. history.
Energy Transfer argued that Greenpeace played a central role in orchestrating an “unlawful and violent scheme” that caused significant financial harm to the company. Greenpeace has vowed to appeal the verdict, which it warned could drive the organization into bankruptcy, potentially ending over five decades of environmental activism.
The protests, which began in 2016 and ended in 2017, were primarily led by Native American groups, particularly the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, who opposed the pipeline’s construction near their reservation. Greenpeace, however, maintains it did not lead the protests but instead provided support for nonviolent demonstrations. The environmental group also contends that the lawsuit represents an attack on free speech.
Energy Transfer’s legal team argued that Greenpeace’s actions resulted in damages between $265 million and $340 million, plus additional compensation. The jury deliberated for about two days before reaching a decision in the case, which was heard in Mandan, North Dakota.
The protests, which gained international attention during President Donald Trump’s first term, included thousands of demonstrators, over 200 Native American tribes, military veterans, political figures, and celebrities. The pipeline, which began operations in 2017, has faced continued opposition from local tribes who seek a comprehensive environmental review and contest its permit to operate under Lake Oahe in South Dakota.
During the trial, Energy Transfer’s co-founder, Kelcy Warren, testified that the company had been the victim of a “false narrative” pushed by protesters. The company’s lawyer, Trey Cox, further accused Greenpeace of exploiting the pipeline controversy to advance its own agenda.
In response, Greenpeace’s attorneys argued that the group did not incite the protests but only offered logistical and nonviolent training support. Greenpeace’s general counsel, Kristin Casper, condemned the verdict, stating, “Energy Transfer hasn’t heard the last of us in this fight. We will not back down, we will not be silenced.”
The case has sparked concern among legal experts, with Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, noting that the large award could have a chilling effect on public interest litigation, particularly environmental cases. Greenpeace has also filed a counter-lawsuit in the Netherlands, alleging that Energy Transfer is using the legal system to silence its critics.
The court’s decision raises broader questions about the boundaries between corporate interests, environmental activism, and freedom of speech. As the legal battle continues, the case is likely to have significant implications for both the future of environmental protests and the use of the legal system to combat corporate power.
