Greenpeace was ordered by a jury in the state of North Dakota to pay $665 million (approximately €613 mn) to Energy Transfer LP, operator of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The ruling follows a lawsuit filed by the American company, which accused the NGO of defamatory campaigns deemed harmful to its commercial activities between 2016 and 2017.
The infrastructure project, which prompted both national and international opposition, led to significant mobilisation within the state, resulting in several hundred arrests. Energy Transfer accused Greenpeace of orchestrating actions aimed at disrupting the pipeline’s construction, a claim the jury largely upheld.
Legal implications under civil society scrutiny
The ruling against Greenpeace prompted immediate reactions from several international organisations. The Climate Action Network International, comprising nearly 2,000 civil society entities, labelled the judicial decision a “sinister attack” on free speech. Its Executive Director, Tasneem Essop, voiced concern over the potential consequences for peaceful mobilisation efforts.
Similarly, 350.org described the verdict as a clear attempt at intimidation. Executive Director Anne Jellema criticised the ruling as an effort to “crush the power of popular activism”. Transparency International also condemned the judicial proceedings, calling it a misuse of the legal system.
Transnational mobilisation and planned appeal
Matilda Flemming, Director of Friends of the Earth Europe, expressed dismay at what she perceived as a threat to democratic rights. Rebecca Brown, head of the Centre for International Environmental Law (CIEL), warned against increasing use of the legal system to suppress protest movements.
Oil Change International, another organisation monitoring the oil industry, stated through its US-based official Collin Rees that it would continue its work. Greenpeace confirmed its intention to appeal the verdict issued by the North Dakota jury.
