Implications of the Massive Defamation Verdict Against Greenpeace for Its Small Role in Dakota Access Pipeline Protest Activities

      I remember well the Dakota Access Pipeline protests of 2016-2017. I wrote about them here and I wrote about Native American views about energy projects here. The protests galvanized Native American views against fossil fuel projects in general and this project in particular. I pointed out at the time that many Native Americans and tribes did not support the protests or at least supported some fossil fuel projects, and many tribes were involved in their own oil and gas projects and companies. The protests went on for months and many Native Americans saw them as a kind of spiritual uprising against the imperialistic demands of modern business. In any case, the protest came to be about much more than that single pipeline.  

     The company building the pipeline, Energy Transfer Partners, made some bad decisions to try and stop the protesters, such as bringing in trained and vicious dogs to try to intimidate them. However, the protesters made bad decisions too, such as the ones who damaged equipment and shut-in pipeline valves. Ironically, the protesters who stayed at the site for many months also caused a lot of local environmental damage that took months and millions of dollars to clean up. Big-name politicians like the Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein came to the site to speak out against pipelines. Some Native Americans evoked a legend of a black snake to declare oil pipelines as a kind of evil. As noted, this particular protest was about more than an oil pipeline. It was also about Native American rights and fellowship. However, I did not like the mixing of Native American sovereignty and rights with radical environmentalism and the merging of these two movements through Progressive political ideas like “extractivism,” colonialism, and anti-corporatism. To be honest, I don’t recall much about Greenpeace being involved but apparently, they were.   

     The pipeline began operations in mid-2017. It now transports about 5% of U.S. daily oil production.  

     The protests were organized by Standing Rock and other Sioux tribes and supported by more than 300 sovereign tribal nations and inspired an international solidarity movement after Energy Transfer’s private security unleashed attack dogs and pepper spray against nonviolent protesters.

     Lawyers for the plaintiff stated that Greenpeace deliberately disseminated false and misleading information to incite fear, disrupt operations, and inflict economic harm.

     Attorney Steven Donziger, a human rights and environmental lawyer, and a columnist for the Guardian wrote about the unusual trial against Greenpeace that he was

“…part of an independent monitoring team of nine attorneys and four prominent human rights advocates who sat through every minute of the three-week trial, in a nondescript courthouse in rural North Dakota. Energy Transfer sued Greenpeace for alleged damages it claimed derived from the historic Indigenous-led Standing Rock protests in 2016 against the Dakota Access pipeline. Our presence in court was essential given that the company was able to shroud the trial in secrecy. There was no court reporter and there still is no public transcript or recording of the proceedings.”

He claims the trial was unfair.

“The legendary US human rights attorney Marty Garbus, a member of our team who has practiced law for more than six decades and who represented Nelson Mandela and Václav Havel, said it was the most unfair trial he had ever witnessed. This is precisely why many of us on the monitoring team believe there is a good chance Greenpeace will not pay the first dollar of the judgment and might actually recoup significant damages from Energy Transfer in a separate case in Europe. That case, currently being heard in Dutch courts, would entitle Greenpeace to compensation based on a finding that the North Dakota case is an illegitimate attempt to squelch free speech.”

“Many legal observers and first amendment scholars regard the North Dakota case as a Slapp harassment lawsuit. Slapps – strategic lawsuits against public participation – are designed not to resolve legitimate legal claims but to use courts to intimidate, silence and even bankrupt adversaries. By their very nature, they violate the constitution because they trespass on the first amendment right to speech. Allowing these cases to proceed almost always saddles the target with backbreaking legal expenses that can silence even the most resilient leaders and organizations.”

Donziger goes on to say that Energy Transfer’s billionaire CEO Kelsy Warren, noted the case was not about recovering money but about sending a message. The case was previously filed in federal court but was thrown out in 2019. At the time:

“Energy Transfer openly claimed Greenpeace had engaged in a racketeering conspiracy and “terrorism” by speaking out against the pipeline and by conducting training in non-violent direct action at the site. The company quickly refiled the case in the more friendly confines of state court. Literally every judge in the judicial district where it was filed recused themselves because of conflicts of interest.”

Greenpeace’s requests to move the trial out of the county where many of the jurors had ties to the fossil fuel industry were denied. Donziger notes that in a pre-trial survey, 97% of residents in the county said they could not be fair to Greenpeace. Perhaps I don’t recall Greenpeace’s involvement because it was quite minimal, as Donziger explains below:

“Adding to the absurdity, Greenpeace was blamed for the entire protest movement even though it played only a minimal role. The protests were led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, on whose ancestral land the Dakota Access pipeline was being built. In fact, only six of the 100,000 people who came to the protests were from Greenpeace – yet Energy Transfer was able to convince the jury to hold the organization responsible for every dollar of supposed damages that occurred over seven months of protests.”

Greenpeace was invited by the Standing Rock Sioux tribe leading the protests.

“Greenpeace was consistently – and, in our opinion, falsely – portrayed by the Energy Transfer lawyer Trey Cox as a criminal enterprise that exploited Indigenous peoples for its own gain. He used words such as “mafia” and “coded language” to describe the group’s operations.”

However, Donziger also notes that Greenpeace may yet get through this unscathed:

“A hearing is scheduled for July in Amsterdam in the Greenpeace lawsuit against Energy Transfer. If Greenpeace prevails on appeal in North Dakota and wins in Europe, it might be Energy Transfer paying substantial sums to Greenpeace rather than the other way around.”

     The result of the North Dakota trial is that Greenpeace was ordered to pay $667 million to Energy Transfer Partners. They were accused of “defamation, trespassing, and orchestrating a campaign of disruption.” An article by Mark Harris in Survival World asks the question:

“If fossil fuel giants can sue protest groups into financial ruin, what’s to stop future corporations from using similar tactics to suppress opposition?”

He notes that the case is about free speech vs. defamation:

“The legal core of the case revolves around whether Greenpeace’s speech and actions were protected under the First Amendment – or whether they crossed into defamatory territory.”

He writes:

“There’s something both sobering and alarming about this verdict. On one hand, if activist organizations are found to deliberately mislead the public or incite destruction, then accountability should follow. But $667 million? That’s not just a fine – it’s a death sentence. It’s impossible to ignore how this could be used as a blueprint for silencing opposition under the weight of massive financial risk. If the goal is to uphold the law, justice must be balanced – not weaponized.”

He thinks that this verdict, which will be appealed, is a case that may decide the future of protest in America. I agree with him that the massive payout is overkill and designed to squelch large public protests, but I think this case is not a normal one – there have been few large-scale protests like it – and there are not likely to be in the future. One reason is that as mentioned it was combined with ethnic minority rights. In that sense, it was also an environmental justice issue. However, the likelihood of exposure to contaminants was always very small. Pipelines are the safest, cleanest, and cheapest way to transport hydrocarbons, and we need hydrocarbons. The protest was based on overestimated dangers. The protesters themselves caused significant environmental damage with tire burning, waste, and trash on the rural site for months. Is this massive verdict meant to suppress dissent, to make radical groups think twice about being overly bold in pursuit of their goals? No doubt. Is it a suppression of free speech? Probably. Is it fair that some damages should be paid? Probably, though maybe not so much to Greenpeace. Greenpeace trained protesters for “direct action” maneuvers, which often meant having to be physically stopped or removed by police. For such actions, people are often arrested. However, they are not often charged hefty fines, designed to ruin them financially so they won’t do it again. No, we do have a right to free protest in the U.S.

     There has been talk of bankrupting Greenpeace, which is funded by donations. However, Deepa Padmanabha, Greenpeace’s senior legal adviser, noted just before the trial:

“Energy Transfer and the fossil fuel industry do not understand the difference between entities and movements. You can’t bankrupt the movement. You can’t silence the movement. There will be a backlash and a price to pay when you pursue these kinds of tactics. People power is more powerful.”

     An article by David Zaruk in Genetic Literacy Project explores the “global future for science-rejectionist NGOs” in light of the verdict. He notes that Greenpeace has been struggling with fundraising and was struggling to recover from unpopular legacy campaigns against Golden Rice and nuclear energy. Zaruk also points out that NGOs like Greenpeace are often funded through dark money by foundations. For Greenpeace, this includes the Rockefeller Brothers, Packard, and Merck and Hewlett. He asks:

“Why didn’t the Energy Transfer lawyers just sue the Rockefeller Brothers foundation instead of Greenpeace? If the Albertan government Allan Inquiry taught us anything, they were likely the ones pulling the strings behind the scenes at Standing Rock. It seems that NGOs like Greenpeace are just acting as front groups for the real campaigns going on below the surface.”

“The message is that what industry wants is to put NGOs out of business (although ironically, that is precisely what Greenpeace wants to do to industry). The optical illusion is even stronger when another set of victims, the Native American tribes, are also brought in.”

He thinks the current model of radical NGOs like Greenpeace being funded via dark money donations by wealthy foundations, though successful in the past, is unsustainable. The model of the NGO being the fall guy for hidden wealthy donors, he says, shows that the model needs to change.  

References:

 

Greenpeace Could Face Bankruptcy After $660M Defamation Verdict. Mark Harris. Survival World. March 31, 2025. Greenpeace Could Face Bankruptcy After $660M Defamation Verdict

Climate Fallout: Jury Delivers Blow to Greenpeace. Jennifer White. Sacramento Bee. March 30, 2025. Climate Fallout: Jury Delivers Blow to Greenpeace

I was an independent observer in the Greenpeace trial. What I saw was shocking. Steven Donziger. The Guardian. March 28, 2025. I was an independent observer in the Greenpeace trial. What I saw was shocking | Steven Donziger | The Guardian

Fossil fuel firm’s $300m trial against Greenpeace to begin: ‘Weaponizing the judicial system’. Nina Lakhani and Rachel Leingang. The Guardian. February 20, 2025. Fossil fuel firm’s $300m trial against Greenpeace to begin: ‘Weaponizing the judicial system’ | Dakota Access pipeline | The Guardian

Viewpoint—Greenpeace’s conviction and humiliation in the pipeline court case raises the question: What’s the global future for science-rejectionist NGOs? David Zaruk. Genetic Literacy Project. April 1, 2025. Viewpoint—Greenpeace’s conviction and humiliation in the pipeline court case raises the question: What’s the global future for science-rejectionist NGOs? - Genetic Literacy Project