Greenpeace Faces $345M Fine in US Pipeline Protest Case
A North Dakota judge on upheld a jury decision ordering Greenpeace to pay $345 million in damages to Energy Transfer, the operator of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The judgment, unprecedented in the history of environmental organizations, poses an existential threat to the global advocacy group.
Greenpeace has denounced the ruling as a deliberate attempt by a U.S. Oil company to silence it through financial ruin. “This represents a devastating judgment,” not only for Greenpeace, but as well for the global environmental movement,” said Michael Gerrard, a professor of law at Columbia University and a specialist in climate justice litigation.
The decision validates the jury’s finding that three Greenpeace entities were responsible for the majority of accusations leveled by Energy Transfer, initially resulting in a condemnation to pay over $665 million. The judge subsequently reduced the amount, determining that some damages had been counted twice, but the revised sum remains substantial.
Energy Transfer accused Greenpeace of playing a central role in large-scale protests in and against the construction of the oil pipeline. Greenpeace and Indigenous representatives involved in the protests refuted these claims. The company brought the lawsuit against three Greenpeace entities – including its international, and U.S. Branches – alleging defamation, nuisance, and violation of private property, seeking a record-breaking indemnity.
Greenpeace, which has repeatedly stated its inability to pay such a sum, has announced its intention to appeal. “This legal battle is far from over. We will seek a new trial and, failing that, will appeal the judgment to the North Dakota Supreme Court,” stated Kristin Casper of Greenpeace International. The organization is also pursuing legal action against Energy Transfer in the Netherlands, where the company is headquartered, alleging abusive litigation practices and seeking compensation for legal costs incurred.
The protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline drew thousands of demonstrators and resulted in hundreds of arrests and injuries. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and environmental groups, including Greenpeace, attempted to block construction of a section of the pipeline, arguing it would violate sacred sites and threaten their drinking water sources.
Energy Transfer initially sought $300 million in damages to compensate for the alleged harm suffered during the protests. However, during the trial, the requested amount more than doubled, with one of Energy Transfer’s attorneys, Trey Cox, stating the increase was intended to “dissuade Greenpeace and other organizations from acting in the same way in the future,” according to the North Dakota Monitor.
This is the second legal action brought by Energy Transfer against Greenpeace, following the dismissal of a previous complaint in by a federal court.
The judgment arrives at a critical juncture for environmental advocacy groups, raising concerns about the potential for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) – lawsuits intended to intimidate and silence critics – to be used more frequently against organizations challenging powerful industries. Allie Rosenbluth of Oil Change International reacted to the ruling stating, “These intimidation lawsuits will not stop people from opposing big oil companies to protect their communities and the planet.”
The case highlights the escalating tensions between environmental activists and the fossil fuel industry, as well as the legal challenges faced by organizations seeking to hold corporations accountable for their environmental impact. The outcome of Greenpeace’s appeal will likely have significant implications for the future of environmental activism and the legal landscape surrounding protests against infrastructure projects.