Legal
Jury: Greenpeace Owes Dakota Access Pipeline Developer $660M in Damages
Defendant Greenpeace says it will appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court
A North Dakota jury has awarded Energy Transfer $660 million in damages after finding that Greenpeace encouraged defamation, trespassing and other illegal actions by protestors opposed to the Dakota Access Pipelin. Photo by Tom Stromme/The Bismarck Tribune via AP, File
Concluding that the nonprofit group Greenpeace initiated defamation, trespassing and other illegal actions by protestors opposed to the Dakota Access Pipeline, a North Dakota jury has awarded more than $660 million in damages to Energy Transfer (ET) LP, the Dallas-based oil and gas company and pipeline developer/operator.
The nine-person jury in Mandan, N.D., on March 19 found that Greenpeace was responsible for defamation, trespassing, interfering with property and other illegal behavior that took place in 2016 and 2017 as protesters numbering in the thousands joined a protest by the Standing Sioux Tribe and camped for months near the state’s Standing Rock Reservation to try to stop the Dakota Access Pipeline. The project was not located on tribal ground but did run underneath the Standing Rock Reservations' water source, which the group saw as polluting and desecrating Native American land.
Energy Transfer charged that Greenpeace also took part in a publicity campaign that delayed and increased the cost by $300 million of the 1,720-mile underground, 30-inch pipeline that extends from North Dakota to Patoka, Ill. The pipeline crosses four states and has been operating since 2017, according to the Dakota Access Pipeline website. The pipeline moves more than a half a million gallons of crude daily, and crosses Lake Oahe, which the Standing Rock Sioux rely on for drinking water.
Energy Transfer says the campaign made false claims including that the pipeline encroached on tribal treaty lands, desecrated the tribe’s sacred sites and that it had used excessive and illegal force against peaceful protestors.
Greenpeace has maintained that it only provided support to the protestors rather than leading or encouraging any illegal activities.
"ET’s lawsuit attempts to rewrite the history of the Indigenous-led protest at Standing Rock could have a chilling impact on free speech in the U.S. and beyond," Greenpeace said in a statement.
In a statement following the verdict, Vicki Granado, an Energy Transfer spokesperson, said the lawsuit "is a win for all law-abiding Americans who understand the difference between free speech and breaking the law.”
Sushma Raman, interim executive director for Greenpeace Inc. and Greenpeace Fund, said it will appeal the verdict to the North Dakota Supreme Court.
“It’s part of a renewed push by corporations to weaponize our courts to silence dissent,” he said in a statement. “We should all be concerned about the future of the First Amendment, and lawsuits like this aimed at destroying our rights to peaceful protest and free speech."
Greenpeace said the case is an example of a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), which it said are attempts “to bury nonprofits and activists in legal fees, push them towards bankruptcy and ultimately silence dissent.”
In February 2024, Greenpeace International initiated the first test of the European Union's anti-SLAPP law when it filed a lawsuit in a Dutch court against Energy Transfer seeking to recover all damages and costs it has suffered as a result of lawsuits in the E.U. demanding hundreds of millions of dollars against Greenpeace International and the various Greenpeace organizations in the U.S.
“Energy Transfer hasn’t heard the last of us in this fight," said Greenpeace International General Counsel Kristin Casper in a statement. "We’re just getting started with our anti-SLAPP lawsuit against Energy Transfer’s attacks on free speech and peaceful protest. We will see Energy Transfer in court this July in the Netherlands. We will not back down. We will not be silenced."
