Greenpeace Ordered to Pay $650 Million in Damages

Greenpeace Ordered to Pay $650 Million in Damages \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ A North Dakota jury has ordered Greenpeace to pay over $650 million in damages to Energy Transfer over Dakota Access Pipeline protests. The pipeline company accused Greenpeace of defamation, trespassing, and conspiracy. Greenpeace plans to appeal the decision, saying their activism will continue.

Greenpeace Ordered to Pay $650 Million in Damages — Quick Looks

• North Dakota jury orders Greenpeace to pay over $650 million in damages.
• The lawsuit stems from 2016–2017 protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline.
• Energy Transfer accused Greenpeace of defamation, trespassing, and civil conspiracy.
• The jury’s decision divides damages between Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA, and Greenpeace Fund Inc.
• Greenpeace claims the financial penalty could force bankruptcy but vows to continue activism.
• Energy Transfer says verdict supports law-abiding citizens affected by protest disruptions.
• Plaintiffs alleged Greenpeace funded, trained, and organized protest efforts to block pipeline construction.
• Greenpeace lawyers argue no evidence showed their involvement in construction delays.
• The pipeline, crossing near Standing Rock Sioux territory, has operated since 2017.
• Greenpeace plans to appeal, maintaining its commitment to environmental activism.

Deep Look

In a landmark ruling, a North Dakota jury has ordered environmental group Greenpeace to pay more than $650 million in damages to pipeline giant Energy Transfer and its subsidiary Dakota Access. The decision, delivered Wednesday, stems from allegations connected to the high-profile protests against the Dakota Access oil pipeline’s construction between 2016 and 2017.

Energy Transfer, headquartered in Dallas, had accused Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA, and its funding arm Greenpeace Fund Inc. of defamation, trespass, nuisance, civil conspiracy, and other unlawful actions. The financial damages awarded will be divided among the three Greenpeace entities, with exact distribution amounts yet to be specified.

Greenpeace warned that such a massive judgment could threaten the organization’s financial survival. Still, following the jury’s decision, Greenpeace senior legal adviser Deepa Padmanabha reaffirmed the group’s resolve: “That’s the really important message today, and we’re just walking out and we’re going to get together and figure out what our next steps are.” The organization has already announced plans to appeal the verdict.

Energy Transfer celebrated the outcome, calling it “a win for Americans who understand the difference between the right to free speech and breaking the law.” In a statement to The Associated Press, the company said, “While we are pleased that Greenpeace has been held accountable for their actions against us, this win is really for the people of Mandan and throughout North Dakota who had to live through the daily harassment and disruptions caused by the protesters who were funded and trained by Greenpeace.”

The legal dispute stems from widespread protests that erupted in 2016 and 2017 against the Dakota Access Pipeline and its planned crossing under the Missouri River near the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation. The tribe and environmental activists expressed grave concerns over potential threats to drinking water and sacred lands. Despite protests, construction continued, and the pipeline began transporting oil in mid-2017.

Energy Transfer’s attorney, Trey Cox, told jurors that Greenpeace engaged in a deliberate scheme to block pipeline construction. During opening arguments, he accused Greenpeace of paying outside activists to protest, supplying blockade materials, organizing protester training, and spreading false claims about the project to incite public opposition and financial instability.

The company’s lawsuit argued that these alleged actions not only delayed construction but also forced refinancing efforts and caused material harm to the pipeline’s reputation and operations.

In response, Greenpeace attorneys vehemently denied the allegations, arguing that no evidence linked the organization to direct involvement in the protests or any construction delays. They maintained that their employees had minimal presence at protest sites and that the lawsuit was designed to silence legitimate environmental advocacy.

Throughout the trial, Greenpeace pointed to the dangerous precedent such a ruling could set. The group warned that imposing massive damages for protest-related actions could threaten the ability of advocacy organizations to challenge powerful corporations in the public interest.

The Dakota Access Pipeline has remained controversial since its inception. It stretches across four states and moves hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude oil daily. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and environmental groups have continued to challenge the pipeline’s legality and environmental impact in court, with ongoing calls for its closure.

Wednesday’s ruling could have far-reaching consequences for environmental activism in the United States. Legal experts note that the case is part of a broader trend of corporations pursuing aggressive litigation strategies—known as SLAPP suits (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation)—to intimidate or financially cripple advocacy groups.

Greenpeace’s legal team has vowed to fight the decision. “This ruling is not the end,” said Padmanabha. “We will appeal and continue to defend the right of people everywhere to peacefully protest and speak out against environmental destruction.”

Energy Transfer, on the other hand, has emphasized that the case was about legality, not stifling free speech. “This is about following the law,” the company stated. “We respect the right to protest, but there’s a line between lawful demonstration and unlawful interference.”

As Greenpeace prepares for its appeal, advocacy organizations around the world are watching closely. The outcome could redefine the limits of protest and corporate accountability in the environmental movement, with billions of dollars and the future of grassroots activism hanging in the balance.

More on US News