In a history-making verdict, a jury in North Dakota has ruled that Greenpeace is liable (biblical proportions) for defamation and other causes of action stemming from its direct actions against the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). The environmental group was ordered to pay close to $667 million in damages to Energy Transfer, the company that is constructing the pipeline. The verdict marks a crucial chapter for environmental activism and corporate accountability in the United States.
Background: The Dakota Access Pipeline and Demonstrations
Dakota Access Pipeline
The 1,172-mile-long underground oil pipeline that runs from North Dakota to Illinois. Its construction in 2016 provoked massive protests, especially from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and environmental organizations such as Greenpeace. Opponents contended that the pipeline jeopardized sacred indigenous lands and could threaten water sources, particularly the Missouri River.
The protests drew international attention and construction was temporarily halted by the Obama administration. But the Obama administration got the project done in 2017 in the Trump administration.
The Lawsuit: Energy Transfer v. Greenpeace
In 2017, Energy Transfer sued Greenpeace for defamation, trespass, nuisance, and civil conspiracy. Greenpeace’s actions during the DAPL protests caused “substantial financial harm and harms to its reputation,” the company said in its original complaint.
Key Allegations:
- Defamation
Energy Transfer alleged that Greenpeace spread false claims about the environmental risks of the pipeline. - Trespass and Nuisance
The firm was also accused of inciting the commission of crimes, including trespass on construction sites, by Greenpeace. - Civil Conspiracy
Energy Transfer contended that Greenpeace acted in concert with the other groups to impede construction of the pipeline, illegally.
The Verdict: How Greenpeace Will Make and Spend Money
The jury found a verdict on March 19, 2025, after deliberating for two days following a three-week trial. The awarded damages are the following:
- Total Damages: Close to $667 million
- Greenpeace USA: Grounds for $404 million liabilities
- Greenpeace Fund Inc. and Greenpeace International: Each liable for approximately $131 million
Energy Transfer described the verdict as a victory for those who draw a line between lawful free speech and unlawful acts.
Greenpeace Reaction and Intention to Appeal
Greenpeace said it would appeal the verdict. Deepa Padmanabha, Senior Legal Adviser for Greenpeace, said:
“We absolutely believe in our legal defense. We believe the law is completely on our side.”
The group says the suit is designed to crush legitimate environmental protest, and that it undermines free speech rights.
Environmental Activism: Implications
The ruling also adds to worries of a chilling effect on environmental activism. States impose substantial financial penalties that may dissuade organizations from participating in protests and advocacy against large-scale industrial projects.
Expert Opinions:
By Alexander Gee Jr. and Kelly Meyerhofer
(Reporting by Alexander Gee Jr. in Madison and Kelly Meyerhofer in Milwaukee; editing by Liza Helfand)
This is a breaking news story rereporting this, and it may be updated.
Corporate Accountability
Others said the ruling served as a reminder for institutions to prevent illegal conduct on their part.
Conclusion
This could prove to be a watershed moment at the intersection of environmental activism and corporate interests. As Greenpeace gets ready to appeal, the case underscores the continuing debate over the bounds of protest and the safeguarding of free speech in the United States.
FAQs
On what grounds did Energy Transfer sue Greenpeace?
It said Greenpeace had defamed, trespassed, created a nuisance, and engaged in a civil conspiracy over the organization’s participation in the Dakota Access Pipeline protests.
How much damages did the jury decide Greenpeace would pay?
After deliberation, the jury awarded just over $667 million in total damages, with Greenpeace USA liable for about $404 million, and Greenpeace Fund Inc. and Greenpeace International each liable for about $131 million.
What might the implications of this verdict be for environmental activism?
The considerable financial penalties could discourage organizations from participating in protests and advocacy against large-scale industrial development, leading to concerns about a chilling effect on environmental activism.
What is Greenpeace’s response to the verdict?
Greenpeace has since said it plans to appeal the decision, expresses confidence in our legal defense, and characterizes the lawsuit as an attack on free speech rights.
What is the Dakota Access Pipeline’s status today?
The Dakota Access Pipeline went into service in 2017 and carries oil from North Dakota to Illinois.
