A jury in North Dakota has ruled against Greenpeace, holding the environmental organisation accountable for millions in damages to Energy Transfer Partners (ETP) over protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline. The Dallas-based pipeline company initially filed a lawsuit seeking $300 million in 2019, claiming Greenpeace orchestrated protests that spread misinformation, resulting in financial losses and property damage.
Following a three-week trial, the jury deliberated for two days before reaching a verdict that has been described as a significant setback for Greenpeace, which expressed concerns that this ruling could jeopardise its U.S. operations. Legal experts suggested that the decision poses serious implications for free speech, with civil rights attorney Marty Garbus labelling it one of the most troubling First Amendment rulings in American history.
The lawsuit stemmed from demonstrations that occurred during 2016 and 2017, when numerous activists, including many from Indigenous backgrounds and various organisations, protested against the pipeline’s construction. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe opposed the project, arguing it threatened their water supply and sacred lands. ETP accused Greenpeace of intentionally disrupting their operations by financing protests, providing training for demonstrators, and making defamatory claims regarding the pipeline.
In response, Greenpeace maintained its actions were part of a legitimate effort in defence of environmental and Indigenous rights, asserting their minor role in the broader protest movement. They contended that the assertions made by ETP were designed to stifle free speech and cast blame on Greenpeace for the actions of thousands who participated in the protests.
Amid the ruling, Greenpeace has hinted at the possibility of appealing the verdict, while simultaneously filing its own lawsuit against ETP in the Netherlands, under EU anti-SLAPP directives. This legal action seeks to reclaim funds expended due to ETP’s lawsuits.
Greenpeace representatives have stressed that the battle against corporate entities like ETP will persist, advocating for environmental justice and the rights of peaceful protest. The broader ramifications of this case extend beyond Greenpeace, as legal experts express concern that such rulings may embolden corporations to target activists and discourage dissent on environmental issues.