Greenpeace $660 mil damages ruling shocks global NGOs

Civil society groups on Thursday condemned a U.S. court order that Greenpeace pay over $660 million in damages to an oil pipeline company as a chilling attack on climate action around the globe.

Environmental defenders rallied behind Greenpeace after the shock ruling by a North Dakota jury fueled concerns that courtrooms were increasingly being used to smother critics.

"It sends a dangerous message: that fossil fuel giants can weaponize the courts to bankrupt and silence those who challenge the destruction of our planet," said Anne Jellema, executive director of advocacy group 350.org.

The judgement "is not only an attack on Greenpeace -- it is an assault on the entire climate movement, clearly intended to chill the resistance to fossil fuels", she added in a written statement to AFP.

Ana Caistor Arendar from rights monitor Global Witness said it was "an existential threat to activism, protest and to land and environmental defenders, not just in the U.S., but everywhere".

Energy Transfer (ET), the Texas-based pipeline operator that was awarded the damages, has denied any attempt to stifle free speech by suing Greenpeace.

The company had accused the environmental advocacy group of orchestrating violence and defamation during the construction of the contentious Dakota Access Pipeline project nearly a decade ago.

From 2016 to 2017, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe led one of the largest anti-fossil fuel protests in U.S. history against the pipeline, and the demonstrations saw hundreds arrested and injured.

The jury awarded more than $660 million in damages across three Greenpeace entities, citing charges including trespass, nuisance, conspiracy, and deprivation of property access.

Greenpeace has vowed to appeal and continue its advocacy work.

Brice Bohmer from Transparency International, a global corruption watchdog, said the lawsuit was "unconscionable" and evidence of a much wider problem.

"This kind of activity is becoming increasingly common across climate action, with fossil fuel actors undermining progress wherever possible," he said.

ET initially sought $300 million in damages through a federal lawsuit, which was dismissed.

It then shifted its legal strategy to state courts in North Dakota -- one of the minority of U.S. states without protections against so-called "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation" or SLAPPs.

Throughout the years-long legal fight, ET's billionaire CEO Kelcy Warren, a major donor to President Donald Trump, was open about his motivations, saying in interviews that he wanted to "send a message".

Tasneem Essop, executive director of Climate Action Network International, a coalition of nearly 2,000 non-government organizations, said the verdict should "worry us all".

Matilda Flemming, director of Friends of the Earth Europe, said she was "appalled" by the outcome but warned it was not an isolated case.

"The right to protest is under threat across the world, from big corporations and self-interested politicians who threaten our democracies," she said.

Greenpeace International is counter-suing ET in the Netherlands, accusing the company of nuisance lawsuits to stifle dissent.

Rebecca Brown, president and CEO of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), said the fight for environmental justice would go on.

"No abusive company, lawsuit, or court decision will change that," she said in a statement on Wednesday after the verdict was handed down.

Oil Change International echoed that tone: "We will continue to resist and hold corporations accountable because our future depends on it," said the group's U.S. campaign manager Collin Rees.

© 2025 AFP