Greenpeace has been ordered to pay over $660 million to Energy Transfer, a Texas-based pipeline company, due to its involvement in the Dakota Access Pipeline protests nearly a decade ago.
This judgment is a significant setback for the environmental group, which claims such a large lawsuit could bankrupt its U.S. operations.
Energy Transfer, the Dakota Access Pipeline operator, accused Greenpeace USA and International of playing a key role in organizing the protests against the pipeline at Standing Rock in 2016 and 2017. These protests gained national attention as activists camped on Energy Transfer’s land to impede construction. Law enforcement responded with water cannons, tear gas, and other measures against unarmed protesters. Greenpeace denies these accusations, calling the case one of the largest Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) ever filed.
Deepa Padmanabha, senior legal advisor for Greenpeace, stated in February that Greenpeace’s role at Standing Rock was limited and that they were proud to stand in solidarity with activists. She emphasized that Greenpeace never engaged in property destruction or violence, dismissing any claims to the contrary as false. The protests united thousands of activists nationwide who opposed the pipeline’s development on the Standing Rock reservation.
Experts warn that this SLAPP lawsuit’s success, and the substantial penalty against Greenpeace, could discourage other activists from speaking out against large corporations. Jennifer Safstrom, director of the Stanton Foundation First Amendment Clinic at Vanderbilt Law School, notes that the verdict significantly alters the risk assessment for advocacy groups involved in environmental and other advocacy issues, as they could also face liability for their efforts.
What are SLAPP Lawsuits?
SLAPP lawsuits are strategic legal actions designed to silence speech by overwhelming organizations or individuals with legal costs. Coined by two professors in the 1990s, Safstrom explains that this practice was initially used to target environmental activists, leading to the term “eco-SLAPP.”
Gabe Walters, an attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, describes it as an abuse of the court system intended to suppress dissent rather than achieve a legitimate legal outcome. EarthRights, an environmental law group, identified 152 cases by fossil fuel companies between 2012 and 2022 that used strategic lawsuits against critics. CASE documented 135 cases filed in 2021. The European Union introduced an anti-SLAPP directive in April 2024 to protect against such lawsuits targeting public participation.
Thirty-five states and Washington D.C. have anti-SLAPP laws, offering varying degrees of protection. Some states require expedited verdicts, while others have “fee shifting” provisions, allowing defendants to recover legal fees if they win. However, in states without these protections, SLAPP lawsuits can be devastating for organizations and individuals.
Walters notes that the primary goal is often not to win in court but to financially ruin opponents through high litigation costs.
How are Environmental Groups Responding?
Environmental groups assert that they will continue their work despite the verdict.
EarthRights stated that the decision would not silence environmental advocacy and that they stand with Greenpeace USA against legal attacks, ensuring the environmental movement grows stronger. Rebecca Brown, president and CEO of the Center for International Environmental Law, affirmed that no company, lawsuit, or court decision would impede the climate fight. She condemned the misuse of the legal system as a threat to environmental justice and democratic freedoms, stating that such tactics would only strengthen their commitment to resistance, solidarity, and the defense of the constitutionally protected right to protest.
ClientEarth CEO Laura Clarke told TIME that the loss highlights the growing trend of big polluters using the legal system to intimidate and silence critics, sending a chilling message that no organization challenging polluting industries is safe.
Greenpeace plans to challenge the ruling and has filed a lawsuit in Dutch court against Energy Transfer, testing the EU’s new anti-SLAPP Directive. Kristin Casper, Greenpeace International General Counsel, stated that Energy Transfer has not heard the last of them in this fight and that they are just beginning their anti-SLAPP lawsuit against Energy Transfer’s attacks on free speech and peaceful protest.
Walters cautions that, without national anti-SLAPP protections, this verdict may embolden powerful companies and silence activists and groups unable to afford costly legal battles. He says the judgment’s sheer size will deter others from criticizing powerful interests and incentivize copycat lawsuits to silence critics.
“`