Anti-Climate Corporatocracy’s New Clothes: An Analysis Of the $667 Million Lawsuit Against Greenpeace

By Daniel Rankin

On the 19th March, a devastating result of a lawsuit, brought upon by Energy Transfer (and its subsidiary Dakota Access) against Dutch-based environmental network Greenpeace, was announced. The latter organisation was ordered to pay the former $667 million in damages for counts including defamation, particularly in relation to the “delays and disruptions” of the Dakota Access Pipeline [1].

Greenpeace were involved in protests in 2016 and 2017 against the construction of the pipeline, which was completed in the latter year. Particularly controversial was the construction over the Missouri River crossing of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation, disrupting their water supply.

According to the plaintiff, Greenpeace “paid professional protesters to come to the area, sent blockade supplies, organised or led protester trainings, passed “critical intel” to the protesters and told untrue things to stop the pipeline from being built”. The organisation was also found liable for trespassing, and nuisance. [1]

Greenpeace described the trial as an indication of the power of “Big Oil Bullies” in stifling free speech and peaceful protest [2]. They describe it as a “SLAPP lawsuit” (Strategic lawsuit against public participation) – litigation intended to censor and intimidate critics by burdening them with legal costs.

The Dakota Access Pipeline: A history of controversy

The Dakota Access Pipeline spans nearly 1200 miles in the American Midwest and was constructed across 2016 and 2017. The Standing Rock Indian Reservation of the Sioux – between North and South Dakota – spearheaded much of the public demonstrations against the construction, with the movement employing the hashtag “#NODAPL”. After water protectors and demonstrators – such as Native environmental groups like the Indigenous Environmental Network (seeing construction as a threat to their water supply) – began in late 2016, clashes with law enforcement spiralled, with nearly 1,000 arrested by February [10].

Public awareness spread nationally – particularly through Native American groups, but saw limited coverage by mainstream news networks [7]. Greenpeace and other movements became vocal particularly in late 2016. However, Greenpeace as an organisation is arguably a constructed scapegoat, with Greenpeace attorneys arguing that their employees “had little or no involvement in the protests and the organizations had nothing to do with Energy Transfer’s delays in construction or refinancing” [1].

Like his early second term, Trump’s first term saw an immediate flurry of anti-environmental policies; in February 2017 he gave final approval to end environmental assessment [8] and expedited the final push towards the pipeline’s construction.

The 2025 lawsuit was not the first, with a 2019 lawsuit in North Dakota – likewise against Greenpeace – failing on counts of rackateering and defamation [9]. Greenpeace, being a network of three main groups [3], was sued by Energy Transfer as a single group, with its American branch bearing the brunt of costs – $404 million, and with Greenpeace Fund and Greenpeace International paying roughly $131 million each [1].

A win for climate skeptics; A SLAPP in the face for climate activism

The lawsuit marks a recent resurgence of dual aspects of the recently-elected Trump administration; firstly, the revival of climate-skeptic policies (as seen by withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on his first day in office), and secondly, a stifling of free speech in relation to public protests (as seen by arrests and deportations of international students protesting for Palestine).

According to the Guardian [4], most of the eleven jurors in the trial have “fossil fuel industry ties”, with many considered for selection expressing open opposition [3] – showing a widespread degree of climate skepticism in the general American public. Greenpeace challenged the selection of many of the hundred jurors considered, including those describing the protests as “scary”, or of “chaos” and “destruction” [4].

American climate skepticism is markedly widespread, with a 2020 YouGov poll (n=26,000) putting American denial at 19% – above Saudi Arabia and below Indonesia – on either the opinion “Climate is not changing”, or “climate is changing, but humans are not responsible”. [5] A 2023 Pew Research poll showed a greater lack of belief, with only 46% attributing global warming to human activity, and 14% claiming “no solid evidence” [6].

Considering the widespread skepticism and ties to the domineering oil industry in North Dakota in particular, the result seemed somewhat inevitable: “It’s inconceivable that this jury could do anything other than ultimately enter a judgment on behalf of the plaintiff,”, said Marty Garbus, a part of a trial-monitoring committee in attendance [4].

On the revival of Trump’s anti-climate policies, Mads Christensen, Greenpeace International Executive Director, said

“The previous Trump administration spent four years dismantling protections for clean air, water, and Indigenous sovereignty, and now along with its allies wants to finish the job by silencing protest. We will not back down. We will not be silenced…” [2]

“This case should alarm everyone, no matter their political inclinations”, said Sushma Raman, Interim Executive Director Greenpeace Inc, Greenpeace Fund [2]. Greenpeace intend to appeal the decision [3].

References

[1] Dura, J., (2025). “Greenpeace must pay over $660M in case over Dakota Access protest activities, jury finds”. Associated Press. 20 Mar 2025. https://apnews.com/article/greenpeace-dakota-access-pipeline-lawsuit-verdict-5036944c1d2e7d3d7b704437e8110fbb

[2] Greenpeace Press Release, (2025). “Jury delivers verdict finding Greenpeace entities liable for more than US$660 million in Energy Transfer SLAPP trial”. Greenpeace, 19 Mar 2025. https://www.greenpeace.org/international/press-release/73572/jury-delivers-verdict-finding-greenpeace-entities-liable-for-more-than-660-million-in-energy-transfer-slapp-trial/

[3] Leingang, R. and Lakhani, N., (2025). “Greenpeace must pay at least $660m over Dakota pipeline protests, says jury”. The Guardian, 19 Mar 2025. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/19/greenpeace-lawsuit-energy-transfer-dakota-pipeline

[4] Leingang, R., (2025). “Most jurors in US pipeline case against Greenpeace have fossil fuel industry ties”. The Guardian, 27 Feb 2025. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/27/greenpeace-dapl-jurors

[5] Buchholz, K., (2020). “Where Climate Change Deniers Live”. Statista, 3 Dec 2020. https://www.statista.com/chart/19449/countries-with-biggest-share-of-climate-change-deniers/

[6] Pasquini, G., Spencer, A., Tyson, A. and Funk, C., (2023). “Why Some Americans Do Not See Urgency on Climate Change”. Pew Research, 9 Aug 2023. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2023/08/09/why-some-americans-do-not-see-urgency-on-climate-change/

[7] Chariton, J., (2017). “Questioning Local Media Coverage of the Dakota Access Pipeline Protests”. Truthdig, 21 Feb 2017. https://www.truthdig.com/articles/questioning-local-media-coverage-of-the-dakota-access-pipeline-protests/

[8] Harder, A. and Matthews, C., (2017). “Trump Administration Gives Final Approval for Dakota Access Pipeline”. The Wall Street Journal, 7 Feb 2017. https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-administration-gives-final-approval-for-dakota-access-pipeline-1486500445

[9] Reuters, (2019). “U.S. court dismisses Energy Transfer Partners lawsuit against Greenpeace”. Reuters, 15 Feb 2019. https://www.reuters.com/article/energy-transfer-lawsuit-greenpeace-idCNL3N20A0AB

[10] The New York Times, (2016). “Tension Between Police and Standing Rock Protesters Reaches Boiling Point”. The New York Times, 28 Oct 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/29/us/dakota-access-pipeline-protest.html