$300M lawsuit could end Greenpeace, the organization says

The environmental activism group’s trial began Monday in the $300 million complaint filed by Energy Transfer, the company that constructed the Dakota Access Pipeline. The lawsuit concerns protests during the construction of the pipeline which was finished in 2017. The pipeline transports oil over 1,000 miles underground through North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Illinois. Texas-based energy company filed a lawsuit against Greenpeace in a North Dakota court in 2019—a federal lawsuit filed earlier has been dismissed. Greenpeace wrote on its website that the lawsuit jeopardized the organization’s future.

Energy Transfer alleges that environmental protesters brought financial and physical harm to its employees and disrupted the pipeline’s construction. Greenpeace argued that protesters simply exercised their right to free speech by protesting the pipeline. Protests centered around the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s objections to the pipeline running through sacred sites and concerns that the pipeline could create a pollution risk on the reservation. The tribe insisted that it was not properly informed about the pipeline’s construction—a claim disputed by Energy Transfer. Both environmental and Native American protesters traveled to protest the pipeline’s construction in North Dakota, camping out along the slated pipeline route during 2016 and 2017.

Were the protests worth $300 million in damages? Energy Transfer accused Greenpeace of using environmental donations to plan violent attacks against company employees and property. The company also argued that protesters cost the company millions of dollars by delaying construction with their demonstrations. Energy Transfer alleged that Greenpeace harmed the company with defamatory statements.

Meanwhile, Greenpeace USA Interim Executive Director Sushma Raman described the $300 million lawsuit as a prime example of companies using court battles to silence their opponents. She added that the case would test and potentially redefine the First Amendment’s future.

The company has insisted that the lawsuit is not an attempt to quell free speech but rather hold protesters accountable for breaking the law. Energy Transfer supports lawful free expression, but the protests were not lawful, according to its July 2024 statement from the company. WORLD reached out to Energy Transfer for a comment on the trial and did not receive an immediate response.

Dig deeper: Read Sarah Schweinsberg’s 2016 on-the-ground report about the North Dakota protests.