Verdict holding Greenpeace liable for $660m called an 'attack' on free speech

A North Dakota jury on Wednesday ruled against Greenpeace, finding the environmental organisation liable for defamation, trespassing, and several other violations in a lawsuit brought against it by Energy Transfer, the company behind the Dakota Access oil pipeline.

The decision has drawn criticism from Greenpeace, legal experts and the Indigenous peoples who were part of the protests. 

According to Greenpeace, the verdict of approximately $660m could force the organisation into bankruptcy, calling it an attack on free speech in the US. Many on social media who follow the organisation came out in support of the organisation. 

Jury orders Greenpeace to pay pipeline company $660 million — This will put Greenpeace into banlruptcy.https://t.co/nWpJjhIwvK pic.twitter.com/aMeaWv99sa

— Tony Seruga (@TonySeruga) March 20, 2025

“We are witnessing a disastrous return to the reckless behaviour that fuelled the climate crisis, deepened environmental racism, and put fossil fuel profits over public health and a liveable planet. The previous Trump administration spent four years dismantling protections for clean air, water, and Indigenous sovereignty, and now along with its allies wants to finish the job by silencing protest. We will not back down,” said Mads Christensen, Greenpeace international executive director.  

The case raised key questions about the limits of free speech and whether private companies can claim restitution from protesters who attempt to block or delay a project.

Steven Donziger, an attorney who followed the trial, said the decision is “an attack on Indigenous peoples, the climate movement, and the right to protest”.

BREAKING: In a deeply unfair trial, the Energy Transfer pipeline company won a $700m verdict against Greenpeace today in North Dakota over phantom
“damages” from the Standing Rock protests. This is an attack on Indigenous peoples, the climate movement, and the right to protest.⤵️ pic.twitter.com/tKmvR0cocF

— Steven Donziger (@SDonziger) March 19, 2025

The Dakota Access Pipeline spans nearly 1,200 miles across four states, from North Dakota’s Bakken oil fields through South Dakota and Iowa to Illinois. 

However, a section crossing the Missouri River near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation sparked the first controversy. The tribes there argue the federal government did not thoroughly consult them during the approval process. 

They warn that running the pipeline beneath Lake Oahe threatens their main water source and risks further harm to sacred sites, violating treaty rights.

Many online showed anger at the jury’s decision regarding what they have described as peaceful protests, with one social environmentalist writing that the jury’s decision is about the “rights of protest” for all.

The $660 million verdict against @greenpeace for campaigning against the Dakota Access #pipeline at Standing Rock is bigger than the environmental movement—it’s about all of our basic right to protest. pic.twitter.com/a8Ulelg5A5

— Will Potter (@will_potter) March 20, 2025

Sushma Raman, interim executive director of Greenpeace USA, said the decision "should be cause of concern to people who participate in peaceful protest, who organize advocacy efforts, who show up in solidarity", according to a report by NPR. 

In 2016, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe led a major resistance against the pipeline project, raising alarms over potential risks to their water resources due to the pipeline’s proximity to their land, claims the company behind the project rejected. 

The protests quickly grew, attracting thousands of supporters, including Greenpeace activists who highlighted threats to Indigenous rights, the environment, and climate risks. Protesters established long-term camps in the area, turning the standoff into a global focal point.

“Energy Transfer’s lawsuits are clear-cut examples of SLAPPs - lawsuits attempting to bury nonprofits and activists in legal fees, push them towards bankruptcy and ultimately silence dissent,” Greenpeace said in a statement.