Greenpeace Faces a $660 Million Defamation Verdict

In a controversial ruling, a jury in North Dakota has ordered Greenpeace to pay more than $660 million (€507 million) in damages to the Texas-based oil company Energy Transfer. This verdict stems from the environmental group's involvement in what has been called one of the largest anti-fossil fuel protests in U.S. history, specifically concerning the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Energy Transfer accused Greenpeace of defamation as well as engaging in trespass, nuisance, and civil conspiracy relating to protests that erupted nearly a decade ago. The oil firm contended that Greenpeace orchestrated an "unlawful and violent scheme" aiming to inflict financial damage upon the company.

Despite the staggering verdict, Greenpeace has pledged to appeal, warning that the ruling could push the organization towards bankruptcy, jeopardizing over 50 years of environmental activism. The group's representatives argue that they were not the leaders of the demonstrations, which were predominantly spearheaded by indigenous leaders opposing the pipeline. Instead, Greenpeace claims their role was supportive, emphasizing free speech and the right to protest.

The jury deliberated for about two days before rendering their decision in Mandan, roughly 100 miles (160 km) from the protest sites. During the trial, Energy Transfer's legal team estimated the damages caused by Greenpeace's actions ranged from $265 million to $340 million. They urged the jury to consider this figure, and more, in their final verdict.

The Dakota Access Pipeline, spanning 1,172 miles, became a focal point of international attention during former President Donald Trump's administration when protests flared up at the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. The protests, starting in April 2016 and culminating in February 2017 with the intervention of law enforcement, involved up to 10,000 demonstrators, including over 200 Native American tribes, veterans, actors, and notable political figures.

Despite construction commencing in 2017, the Dakota Access Pipeline still lacks a critical permit for operation under Lake Oahe, with local tribes advocating for an exhaustive environmental review. During the trial, Energy Transfer's co-founder Kelcy Warren described the narrative spun by protesters as “totally false,” adding that decisive action against Greenpeace was necessary.

Greenpeace representatives countered in court, arguing that their activities were focused on promoting nonviolent protest tactics. In a statement following the verdict, Greenpeace International's general counsel, Kristin Casper, vowed that this legal battle is far from over, affirming the organization's commitment to continue opposing Energy Transfer's efforts.

Legal expert Carl Tobias of the University of Richmond warned that the scale of the damages could have a chilling effect on environmental and public interest lawsuits across the nation, potentially encouraging more litigation against activist groups.

Adding to the legal fray, Greenpeace has lodged a counter-suit against Energy Transfer in the Netherlands, asserting that the oil giant is misusing the legal system to quell dissenting voices.

This verdict raises critical questions not only about the future of Greenpeace but also about the broader implications for environmental activism and free speech in the United States. Will this landmark decision deter environmental organizations from taking a stand against corporate interests? Only time will tell.