LDN - Business

Greenpeace must pay over $660M in case over Dakota Access protest activities, jury finds

[March 20, 2025] By JACK DURA

MANDAN, N.D. (AP) — Environmental group Greenpeace must pay more than $660 million in damages for defamation and other claims brought by a pipeline company in connection with protests against the Dakota Access oil pipeline’s construction in North Dakota, a jury found Wednesday.

Dallas-based Energy Transfer and subsidiary Dakota Access had accused Netherlands-based Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA and funding arm Greenpeace Fund Inc. of defamation, trespass, nuisance, civil conspiracy and other acts. Greenpeace USA was found liable for all counts, while the others were found liable for some. The damages owed will be spread out in different amounts over the three entities.

Greenpeace said earlier that a large award to the pipeline company would threaten to bankrupt the organization. Following the nine-person jury’s verdict, Greenpeace’s senior legal adviser said the group’s work “is never going to stop.”

“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,” Deepa Padmanabha told reporters outside the courthouse.

The organization later said it plans to appeal the decision.

“The fight against Big Oil is not over today," Greenpeace International General Counsel Kristin Casper said. "We know that the law and the truth are on our side.”

She said the group will see Energy Transfer in court in July in Amsterdam in an anti-intimidation lawsuit filed there last month.

The damages total nearly $666.9 million. The jury found Greenpeace USA must pay the bulk of the damages, nearly $404 million, while Greenpeace Fund Inc. and Greenpeace International would each pay roughly $131 million.

Energy Transfer called Wednesday's verdict a “win” for “Americans who understand the difference between the right to free speech and breaking the law.”

“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 company said in a statement to The Associated Press.

[to top of second column]

Greenpeace representatives talk with reporters on Wednesday, March 19, 2025, outside the Morton County Courthouse in Mandan, N.D. From left are Greenpeace USA Interim Executive Director Sushma Raman, Greenpeace USA Senior Legal Adviser Deepa Padmanabha, Greenpeace International General Counsel Kristin Casper, Greenpeace USA attorney Everett Jack Jr., Greenpeace Fund Inc. attorney Matt Kelly and Greenpeace USA Associate General Counsel Jay Meisel. (AP Photo/Jack Dura)

The company previously said the state court lawsuit was about Greenpeace not following the law, not free speech.

In a statement, Energy Transfer attorney Trey Cox said, “This verdict clearly conveys that when this right to peacefully protest is abused in a lawless and exploitative manner, such actions will be held accountable.”

The case reaches back to protests in 2016 and 2017 against the Dakota Access Pipeline and its Missouri River crossing upstream of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation. For years the tribe has opposed the line as a risk to its water supply.

The multistate pipeline transports about 5% of the United States’ daily oil production. It started transporting oil in mid-2017.

Cox had said Greenpeace carried out a scheme to stop the pipeline’s construction. During opening statements, he alleged Greenpeace paid outsiders to come into the area and protest, sent blockade supplies, organized or led protester trainings, and made untrue statements about the project to stop it.

Attorneys for the Greenpeace entities had said there was no evidence to the claims and that Greenpeace 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.

Back to top