Greenpeace Must Pay $660M to Oil Company Over Pipeline Protests

A North Dakota jury on Wednesday found Greenpeace liable for millions of dollars in damages to a giant pipeline company in relation to protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline nearly a decade ago.

Dallas-based Energy Transfer Partners sued Greenpeace for $300 million in 2019, accusing the environmental group of masterminding the protests, spreading misinformation and causing the company financial loss through damaged property and lost revenues.

After a three-week trial, the 9-person jury took two days to return their verdict.

The result is a huge blow to the 50-year-old environmental organization, which previously said that the case could bankrupt its US operations, and experts say it could have chilling implications for free speech.

“I think this is one of the worst First Amendment decisions in American history,” said Marty Garbus, a civil rights lawyer who has been monitoring the trial. “The decision is beyond comprehension.”

Other experts have criticized the lawsuit as an egregious SLAPP lawsuit — a strategic lawsuit against public participation that seeks to silence critics by burying them in exorbitant legal costs.

“The verdict is a loss for Greenpeace, but more so for the First Amendment right to speak out, and thus for all Americans,” said James Wheaton, founder and senior counsel for the First Amendment Project. “If huge corporations can do this to one they can do it to everyone.”

It is not yet clear whether Greenpeace will appeal.

The lawsuit revolved around protests against the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in 2016 and 2017. The Standing Rock Sioux fiercely opposed the pipeline, saying it would endanger the Missouri River, their water source, and damage sacred tribal grounds.

Many thousands of people, including representatives of more than 100 tribes and dozens of non-profits, joined in the months-long protest.

Energy Transfer accused Greenpeace of carrying out a scheme to stop the pipeline’s construction. During trial opening statements, the company’s attorney Trey Cox accused the organization of paying outsiders to come into the area and protest, organizing protester trainings, and making defamatory statements about the pipeline.

“Today, the jury delivered a resounding verdict, declaring Greenpeace’s actions wrong, unlawful, and unacceptable by societal standards. It is a day of reckoning and accountability for Greenpeace,” Cox said in a statement.

“This verdict serves as a powerful affirmation of the First Amendment. Peaceful protest is an inherent American right; however, violent and destructive protest is unlawful and unacceptable,” Cox said.

Greenpeace, however, said the claim was a thinly veiled attack on free speech and protest, and was an attempt to make the group responsible for everything that happened at a protest attended by many thousands of people, most of whom were unconnected to Greenpeace.

Attorneys for the group argued it had only a minor role at the protest teaching non-violent direct action skills at the request of Indigenous organizers. In relation to the alleged defamatory statements, Greenpeace argued these claims had been widely reported in the media before it ever commented on them.

“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,” said Deepa Padmanabha, senior legal advisor for Greenpeace USA.

Last month Netherlands-based Greenpeace International filed its own claim against Energy Transfer in a Dutch court using the European Union’s anti-SLAPP legislation, seeking to recover the damages and costs the organization has incurred as a result of the company’s lawsuits.

“The fight against Big Oil isn’t over today, and we know that the truth and the law are on our side. Greenpeace International will continue to campaign for a green and peaceful future. Energy Transfer hasn’t heard the last of us in this fight” said Kristin Casper, Greenpeace International’s general council in a statement.