A North Dakota jury ordered Greenpeace to pay over $660 million in damages to Energy Transfer. But contrary to reports in some media, the organization was not fined for its protest activities per se, but for illegal practices such as a defamation campaign and sabotage related to its actions during the 2016-2017 protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline construction.
Consequently, a nine-member American jury awarded damages to the victim: Energy Transfer, the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL).
The specific – deemed illegal – methods employed during these demonstrations, were these:
- Defamation: They disseminated information alleging that Energy Transfer’s pipeline construction threatened sacred sites and water sources. The court found these claims to be defamatory, harming the company’s reputation.
- Trespassing: The activists entered private properties without permission to stage protests, disrupting construction activities.
- Nuisance: The organization orchestrated large-scale demonstrations that impeded lawful construction operations, constituting a public nuisance.
- Civil Conspiracy: They collaborated with other groups to plan and execute activities aimed at halting the pipeline’s progress, which the court interpreted as a conspiracy to interfere with legal business operations.
In this article we are going to check what consequences this has on the Greenpeace organization.
Background on the Dakot Pipeline and Protests
The DAPL is a 1,172-mile underground pipeline designed to transport crude oil from the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota to Illinois, crossing beneath Lake Oahe near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. This route raised significant concerns among the tribe and environmental activists, fearing water contamination and the destruction of sacred sites. These concerns fueled widespread protests from 2016 to 2017, drawing international attention and involving various groups, including Native American tribes and environmental organizations like Greenpeace.
Greenpeace played a pivotal role in supporting the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s opposition, engaging in activities such as organizing campaigns, raising awareness, and mobilizing supporters. Their efforts aimed to amplify Indigenous voices and highlight environmental risks, contributing to a movement that saw significant participation over several months.
Scale and Dynamics of the Protests
The protests were notable for their scale at the beginning, but soon went down.
| Date | Number of Protesters | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Late September 2016 | 3,000 to 4,000 | Several thousand more joined on weekends, reflecting peak engagement |
| Thanksgiving Day, Nov 24, 2016 | Several thousand, possibly doubled | Significant increase, possibly due to holiday and media attention |
| Mid-January 2017 | A few hundred | Numbers dwindled as the protest camp was cleared, marking a decline |
Although the initial numbers show the protests as one of the largest gatherings of Native Americans in over a century, with support from more than 300 federally recognized tribes by late September 2016, there was a steep decline in protest attendance. This can be attributed to several factors:
- Harsh Winter Conditions: The onset of severe winter weather made it challenging for protesters to maintain their encampments, leading many to leave the site.
- Government Orders and Law Enforcement Actions: Authorities issued evacuation orders and increased law enforcement presence, resulting in the eviction of remaining protesters by February 23, 2017.
- Completion of Pipeline Construction: As construction progressed and the pipeline became operational, the momentum of the protests diminished, leading to a natural decline in participation.
Legal Proceedings and Verdict Details
Energy Transfer, the Dallas-based developer of DAPL, filed a lawsuit against Greenpeace in 2019, accusing the organization of defamation, trespass, nuisance, and civil conspiracy related to the protests. The company claimed Greenpeace’s actions led to financial losses and reputational damage, alleging they masterminded the protests and caused disruptions. After a three-week trial in Morton County, North Dakota, a nine-person jury deliberated for two days before finding Greenpeace liable on most counts, awarding over $660 million in damages.
While a detailed breakdown of damages for each charge is not publicly available, key figures provide insight into the verdict’s scope:
- Total damages awarded to Energy Transfer: Over $660 million.
- Greenpeace USA’s share: Nearly $404 million.
- Greenpeace International and Greenpeace Fund Inc.: Approximately $131 million each.
This financial penalty is unprecedented, especially given Greenpeace’s portrayal of the lawsuit as a strategic attempt to stifle dissent, with statements from their interim executive director, Sushma Raman, emphasizing concerns over free speech and protest rights.
Financial Impact on Greenpeace + Donation Breakdown
The $660 million fine represents a severe financial burden for Greenpeace, particularly for their U.S. operations. Financial data since 2010 which we obtained by checking Greenpeace’s financial statements between 2018 and 2023 (2024 was not available) provides some context:
| Year | Revenue | Expenses |
|---|---|---|
| 2018 | $39.7M | $39.5M |
| 2019 | $39.5M | $39.3M |
| 2020 | $40.2M | $39.8M |
| 2021 | $41.0M | $40.7M |
| 2022 | $40.5M | $40.2M |
| 2023 | $40.0M | $38.0M |
This data indicates that Greenpeace USA’s annual budget has remained relatively stable, averaging around $40 million in both revenue and expenses during these years. The revenue comes from funds from individual contributions and foundation grants, not government, corporate, or political party money.
The fine, especially Greenpeace USA’s share of nearly $404 million, far exceeds their annual budget, posing a real risk of bankruptcy. Greenpeace has warned that this could lead to the closure of their U.S. branch, impacting their ability to campaign on environmental issues.
In response to the $660 million verdict, the organization plans to appeal and is exploring legal avenues to counter Energy Transfer’s actions in Europe. “We’re going to appeal. And we’re prepared to fight this all the way to victory,” the organisation says on its website. It has initiated legal proceedings in the Netherlands, aiming to recover legal expenses and seek moral damages. The case is scheduled for July.
It contends that the North Dakota lawsuit exemplifies a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), intended to financially drain activists and journalists through exorbitant legal costs.
Greenpeace has previously secured legal victories in Europe. In March 2024, a French court dismissed TotalEnergies’ lawsuit against Greenpeace France. Additionally, in December 2024, Shell agreed to settle a lawsuit with Greenpeace, resulting in a donation to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution instead of damages.
Greenpeace’s international headquarters are in Amsterdam, and the organization was originally founded in Canada. The outcome of the Dutch proceedings could set a precedent under the European Union’s anti-SLAPP directive, potentially influencing future cases involving activist organizations and corporate entities.
Broader Implications for Environmental Activism
The verdict has certainly raised concerns about its potential to chill environmental activism and free speech. Civil rights entities and legal experts are suggesting it could be one of the worst First Amendment decisions in American history.
The case is seen as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), aimed at intimidating opponents of fossil fuel projects, with potential implications for protest rights nationwide. This precedent may embolden other corporations to pursue legal action against advocacy groups, potentially stifling dissent and the right to protest.
Still, it’s crucial for organizations like Greenpeace to act with greater caution—particularly in the U.S., where the political landscape has shifted. They may need to rethink their tactics to stay within legal boundaries while continuing to push for environmental change. Any legal vulnerability will be targeted, without hesitation.
