Climate activists have criticised a North Dakota jury’s decision ordering Greenpeace to pay over $660m (£508m) in damages to an oil company, calling it a “dangerous precedent” that threatens the future of environmental activism and the right to protest in the US.
Energy Transfer, the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), accused Greenpeace of defamation, trespassing and conspiracy, and claimed the environmental group spread misinformation and orchestrated illegal activities during the 2016-2017 pipeline protests – one of the largest anti-fossil fuel protests in US history.
After two days of deliberation, a jury on Wednesday held the environmental group guilty on almost all counts and ordered that Greenpeace USA pay nearly $404m (£311m) to the oil company. Greenpeace Fund Inc and Greenpeace International were ordered to pay roughly $131m (£100m) each.
Energy Transfer framed the verdict as a victory against what it called “lawless” activism.
“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 company said.
Its attorney, Trey Cox, argued the case proved Greenpeace had “abused” the right to protest.
Greenpeace denied the allegations, calling the lawsuit a blatant attempt to bankrupt environmental defenders and silence dissent.
The group said the ruling was part of a broader corporate effort to erode free speech and stifle environmental movements.
“Big Oil bullies around the world will continue to try to silence free speech and peaceful protest, but the fight against Energy Transfer’s meritless SLAPP lawsuit is not over,” the organisation said.
Interim executive director Sushma Raman called the case “an attack on fundamental rights” and a threat to any group that dared challenge powerful corporations.
“We should all be concerned about the future of the First Amendment, and lawsuits like this aimed at destroying our rights to peaceful protest and free speech,” she said.
Although Greenpeace vowed to appeal the judgement, the organisation had said last month it could be forced into bankruptcy because of the case, ending over 50 years of activism. Many activists saw the ruling as a strategic attempt to silence dissent, setting a dangerous precedent for protest rights in the US.
Marty Garbus, a veteran trial attorney, called the proceedings “one of the most unfair trials” he had witnessed in his six-decade career. “The law that comes down in this case can affect any demonstration, religious or political. It’s far bigger than the environmental movement,” he said.
“It's far bigger than the environmental movement.”
Oscar Soria, co-CEO of The Common Initiative and a former Greenpeace leader, told The Independent the verdict was “a dangerous precedent that threatens the fundamental right to peaceful protest in America”.
“This outrageous verdict is nothing short of corporate tyranny masquerading as justice,” he said.
Harjeet Singh, climate activist and founding director of the Satat Sampada Climate Foundation, called the ruling “a major setback for climate and social justice movements fighting to protect the rights of people and our planet”.
“This ruling attempts to silence those who stand against the destructive power of fossil fuel corporations. However, this struggle will not end, and we will not be intimidated,” he told The Independent.
“The responsibility for environmental destruction and the escalating climate crisis lies squarely with fossil fuel companies, and we must continue to hold them accountable. They cannot litigate away their culpability.”
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, which led the protests against DAPL, denounced the lawsuit as an attempt to rewrite history.
“Energy Transfer is frivolously alleging defamation and seeking money damages, designed to shut down all voices supporting Standing Rock,” Standing Rock Sioux tribal chairperson Janet Alkire said.
The tribe has long argued that the pipeline crosses Sioux Nation treaty land and poses a threat to their water resources and community.
Ms Alkire said the protests were called and organised by the tribe, with Greenpeace and other environmental groups acting as allies.
“The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe will not be silenced,” she said.
Greenpeace’s legal team also criticised the lawsuit for erasing Indigenous leadership in the movement.
“What we saw over these three weeks was Energy Transfer’s blatant disregard for the voices of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe,” said Deepa Padmanabha, senior legal advisor, Greenpeace USA.
Kelcy Warren, Energy Transfer’s billionaire founder and a major donor to Donald Trump, admitted in a video deposition that his company had offered financial incentives – including money, luxury ranch, and a new school – to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe to end the protests, according to trial monitors who observed the proceedings.
They said the tribe refused the offer, with Standing Rock leadership maintaining that their opposition to the pipeline was based on protecting their land and water.
“Offers such as this one are emblematic of the strategies often employed by extractive industries to secure compliance or mitigate opposition from affected communities,” the group wrote.
Natali Segovia, executive director of the water protector Legal Collective, argued that the lawsuit was not about justice but about controlling the narrative. “This case was a deliberate orchestration by a pipeline company not only to silence dissent, but to carefully shape a corporate narrative that demonises the environmental justice and Indigenous rights movements,” she said.
With Greenpeace set to appeal the decision, legal experts said the case could ultimately reach the US Supreme Court and set a direction for future environmental and rights movements.
“At a time when the world needs people to stand up against an obvious erosion of rights in this country, we must recognise the verdict against Greenpeace is designed to instil fear and discourage people from exercising their constitutional right to protest,” Jeanne Mirer, president of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, said.
The ruling also raises concerns about the financial sustainability of rights organisations like Greenpeace. Experts say most organisations are unlikely to be able to bear massive legal costs.
However, a petition by Greenpeace’s French chapter asking people to show support against the oil company’s “gag order” had accumulated over 290,000 signatures by Thursday morning.
Mads Christensen, executive director of Greenpeace International, said: “We are witnessing a disastrous return to the reckless behaviour that fuelled the climate crisis, deepened environmental racism, and put fossil fuel profits over public health and a liveable planet.”
Scientists warn of ‘frightening’ future after UN report confirms 2024 breached 1.5C
Australia’s growing heatwave threat is putting strain on people’s hearts, study warns
What are the environmental risks after North Sea collision?
Steve Reed branded ‘Where’s Wally’ as he is accused of ‘ducking scrutiny’
Plastic litter increases by nearly 10% on UK beaches, charity clean-up finds
Watchdog to investigate whether Government failed to comply with key water laws
