In a landmark decision with profound implications for environmental activism and corporate accountability, a North Dakota jury has rendered a verdict requiring Greenpeace to pay over $660 million in damages to Energy Transfer, the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline. This outcome stems from Greenpeace’s involvement in the 2016 protests against the pipeline’s construction, which garnered international attention.

This was Greenpeace taking direct action, no different from their first acts to stop nuclear weapon tests in the Aleutian islands in 1971 and the organization’s best known acts to save the whales over subsequent decades.

After this jury verdict, it may be Greenpeace that needs saving.

Background of the Case

The Dakota Access Pipeline, a 1,172 mile conduit designed to transport crude oil from North Dakota to Illinois, became a focal point of contention due to alleged environmental and indigenous rights concerns. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, whose reservation lies near the pipeline’s route, argued that the project threatened their primary water source and sacred sites. The ensuing protests attracted thousands, including environmental groups like Greenpeace, leading to a series of confrontations with law enforcement.

Energy Transfer cites the protests as the reason for a five month delay in the pipeline’s completion, forcing it to miss a January 1, 2017, online production date that cost them lost profits and shareholder value.

Energy Transfer’s Legal Action

In response to the bad acts, Energy Transfer initiated legal proceedings, case no. 30-2019-CV-00180 (North Dakota state trial court), against Greenpeace, alleging defamation, disruption, and property damage. The company contended that Greenpeace orchestrated and funded activities, from training protestors to buying the locks used by protestors to chain themselves to equipment, that resulted in significant economic harm and reputational damage. Notably, this was not Energy Transfer’s first legal action against Greenpeace; a prior federal RICO lawsuit seeking $300 million was dismissed, prompting the company to pursue these claims in North Dakota state court.

This state court action arises from Greenpeace’s “unlawful and violent scheme to cause financial harm to Energy Transfer, physical harm to its employees and infrastructure, and to disrupt and prevent Energy Transfer’s construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline” .. and “Defendants’ unlawful acts include violent attacks on Energy Transfer employees and property, soliciting money for and providing funding to support these illegal attacks, inciting protests to disrupt construction, and a vast, malicious publicity campaign against Energy Transfer. All the while, Defendants utilized the anti DAPL platform to raise tens of millions of dollars in donations from the public under the guise of concern over Indigenous peoples’ rights.”

The complaint details Greenpeace’s inappropriate targeting of Energy Transfer’s business relations, including attempts to get the project lenders to withdraw funding, “Greenpeace .. continued to disseminate misrepresentations to the banks throughout 2017. In reliance on these misrepresentations, banks terminated their relationships with Energy Transfer.”

In response to the statement in the trial’s closing argument trial that protestors threw “human feces, water bottles full of urine, burning logs” at law enforcement and security, in addition to pouring sand in gas tanks and slitting tires on police vehicles, Greenpeace’s lawyer appeared to only respond that the organization did not expressly order any act of vandalism.

The Jury’s Verdict

At the close of the three week trial, the nine person jury sitting in Morton County found Greenpeace liable on multiple counts, including trespass to land and chattel, aiding and abetting trespass, conversion, defamation, tortious interference, and civil conspiracy. The damages, totaling approximately $667 million, are apportioned among Greenpeace entities as follows: Greenpeace USA is responsible for nearly $404 million, while Greenpeace Fund Inc. and Greenpeace International are each liable for approximately $131 million.

Greenpeace’s Response and SLAPP Allegations

Greenpeace has announced its intention to appeal the verdict, spinning the lawsuit as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). More than 30 states have enacted anti-SLAPP laws prohibiting legal actions intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics, but North Dakota is not among them. So, Greenpeace will have no defense there.

Sushma Raman, interim executive director of Greenpeace Inc., emphasized the organization’s resolve, stating, “This is the end of a chapter, but not the end of our fight. Energy Transfer knows we don’t have $660 million. They want our silence, not our money.”

Implications for Free Speech and Environmental Advocacy

The verdict has caused some civil liberties advocates to wrongly describe the jury verdict as a potential threat to free speech and the right to protest. Critics argue that such substantial financial penalties could deter non-profit organizations and individuals from engaging in lawful protest activities, thereby undermining democratic principles.

But this is not a First Amendment case; there is no government restricting speech and that is what the First Amendment protects; not private acts. Rather this is a business that was under attack fighting back in the courts against trespass to land and chattel, conversion, defamation, tortious interference, civil conspiracy, and more.

This is not about free speech. There is no constitutional right to trespass, defame and destroy. Read the Energy Transfer’s complaint in the legal proceedings link above to see what harm was actually done.

Conclusion

The jury’s decision in favor of Energy Transfer marks a pivotal moment in the intersection of environmental activism and corporate interests. As Greenpeace prepares to appeal, the case underscores the balance between holding organizations accountable for their actions and peaceful protest (.. it has nothing to do with constitutional rights to free expression). Whether or not the Netherlands based Greenpeace survives in the U.S., the outcome of this legal battle will likely influence future strategies of both advocacy groups and corporations, shaping the landscape of activism in the United States, environmental activism, and more, .. from Tesla to Israel.

_________________________
Join us for the next in our “carbon based life form” webinar series, “Mandatory GHG Disclosures in Maryland Real Estate Contracts” on Tuesday, April 8 from 9 – 9:30 am. The webinar is complimentary, but you must register here.