Energy Transfer v. Greenpeace

Energy Transfer v. Greenpeace is a series of lawsuits between the American pipeline company Energy Transfer and several Greenpeace organizations. The litigation arises from the Dakota Access Pipeline protests that took place in 2016 and 2017. The original lawsuit filed by Energy Transfer in U.S. federal court was dismissed in 2019. A subsequent state court filing the same year resulted in a judgment of $667 million in 2025, reduced by a judge to $345 million the same year. Greenpeace International counter-sued Energy Transfer for anti-SLAPP in the Netherlands in 2025.

Background

The lawsuits involved the Dakota Access Pipeline which was a $3.78 billion project to build a pipeline to transport oil from the Balkan oil fields. The project was announced in June 2014 with construction beginning in June 2016.[1] Between 2016 and 2017, protests against the pipeline took place, organized by those opposing its construction, including the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation.[2]

Lawsuits

2017 federal lawsuit dismissal

In 2017, Energy Transfer sued Greenpeace, EarthFirst, and BankTrack in federal court in North Dakota, accusing it of racketeering and defamation for paying protestors to disrupt construction and misleading people about the project.[3] The lawsuit claimed Greenpeace USA made false claims about the liklihood of contamination of sacred sites of the Standin Rock Sioux Tribe.[4] The lawsuit was dismissed in 2019.[5]

2025 jury award against Greenpeace

A week after the dismissal in 2019, Energy Transfer filed a similar lawsuit in North Dakota state court.[6] In 2025, a North Dakota jury ordered Greenpeace USA and affiliated entities, including Greenpeace Fund and Greenpeace International, to pay $667 million in damages to Energy Transfer.[7]

Evidence presented during the trial included allegations that Greenpeace provided funding, equipment, and logistical support to activists at the protest site.[7] Greenpeace was found liable for defamation, trespass, nuisance, and civil conspiracy after the jury concluded the organization had supported and encouraged disruptive and, at times, violent demonstrations that delayed construction and harmed Energy Transfer’s business relationships.[7][8] Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace Fund were held responsible for $535 million of the total damages.[9] Greenpeace has appealed the verdict.[8][10]

2025 Netherlands litigation

In 2025, Greenpeace International sued Energy Transfer in the Amsterdam District Court, seeking to declare the United States lawsuit unlawful. This is the first case brought under the EU's 2024 anti-SLAPP directive.[11]

In 2026, the North Dakota Supreme Court issued a limited anti-suit injunction which restricted portions of the lawsuit from being relitigated in the Amsterdam court.[12] In 2026, the Amsterdam court rejected Energy Transfer's request to dismiss the case,[13] but also ruled that the EU anti-SLAPP directive does not apply in the case because it has not been implemented into law, leaving the litigation to proceed under ordinary tort law.[14]

References

  1. ↑ "Keystone pipeline: How many jobs it would really create". CNN. January 28, 2017. Archived from the original on January 27, 2017. Retrieved April 22, 2025.
  2. ↑ Thorbecke, Catherine (October 28, 2016). "Timeline of the Dakota Access Pipeline Protests". ABC News. Retrieved August 24, 2026.
  3. ↑ "North Dakota judge finalizes $345m judgment against Greenpeace in pipeline case". The Guardian. February 27, 2026. Retrieved August 24, 2026.
  4. ↑ Dwyer, Colin (August 22, 2017). "Dakota Access Pipeline Owner Sues Greenpeace For 'Criminal Activity'". NPR. Retrieved May 1, 2022.
  5. ↑ "U.S. court dismisses Energy Transfer Partners lawsuit against Greenpeace". Reuters. February 15, 2019. Retrieved May 1, 2022.
  6. ↑ Brady, Jeff (February 24, 2025). "Greenpeace faces a $300 million lawsuit after Dakota Access Pipeline protests". NPR. Retrieved August 24, 2026.
  7. 1 2 3 Fisher, Daniel (May 7, 2025). "Do the crime, lose tax-exempt status: Does Greenpeace pipeline protest apply?". Legal Newsline. Retrieved July 10, 2025.
  8. 1 2 "Greenpeace ordered to pay $666.8 million in damages over Dakota Access Pipeline". Central ND News. March 20, 2025. Retrieved July 10, 2025.
  9. ↑ "Analysis: Greenpeace's 'big funders' have the money to foot $667 million in damages awarded to Dakota Access Pipeline owners". Central ND News. June 4, 2025. Retrieved July 10, 2025.
  10. ↑ "Commentator Steve Cortes on pipeline protests: Greenpeace 'brought violence to North Dakota'". Central ND News. March 21, 2025. Retrieved July 10, 2025.
  11. ↑ Quell, Molly (February 11, 2025). "Greenpeace files an anti-intimidation case against an American fossil fuel pipeline company". Yahoo! News. Retrieved August 24, 2026.
  12. ↑ Keane, Timothy (May 12, 2026). "North Dakota Supreme Court Blocks Greenpeace's Collateral Attack on a Jury's Verdict". National Law Review. Retrieved August 24, 2026.
  13. ↑ "Dutch Court Agrees to Hear Greenpeace Lawsuit Against US". The Washington Post. June 3, 2026. Retrieved August 24, 2026.
  14. ↑ "Dutch Court rejects jurisdictional challenge in US SLAPP-related proceedings". Human Rights Law Centre. August 21, 2026. Retrieved August 24, 2026.
This page is issued from Wikipedia. The text is available under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Additional terms may apply for the media files.