THEMARICOPAMOD.COM / WEATHER & ENVIRONMENT

Greenpeace faces financial ruin after jury's decision in Dakota Access Pipeline lawsuit

The protests drew national attention and led to clashes between demonstrators and law enforcement.

PUBLISHED MAR 20, 2025

Guillermo Rosette (L) and Linda Velarde of the Chichimeca Anasazi tribe from Taos, New Mexico, join hundreds of other Native Americans and their supporters in a traditional Round Dance in the middle of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the Trump Internation

Washington D.C.: A North Dakota jury has ruled that Greenpeace must pay $660 million in damages to Energy Transfer, the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). The verdict stems from a lawsuit filed by Energy Transfer, which accused the environmental nonprofit of defamation and playing a significant role in inciting protests against the pipeline project nearly a decade ago.

The case dates back to 2016 and 2017, when the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline near the Standing Rock Indian Reservation in North Dakota sparked massive demonstrations. Thousands of protesters, including Indigenous activists and environmental groups, gathered to oppose the pipeline, citing concerns over environmental damage and threats to sacred lands. The protests, which at times turned violent, drew national attention and led to clashes between demonstrators and law enforcement.

Energy Transfer claimed that Greenpeace played a central role in organizing and fueling the unrest, which they argued caused significant harm to their business operations. After years of legal battles, the jury sided with Energy Transfer, awarding damages far exceeding the $340 million initially sought by the company.

Greenpeace has called the verdict a devastating blow. The organization stated that the $660 million penalty is 10 times its annual operating budget and could force it into bankruptcy. In a statement, Greenpeace criticized the lawsuit as an attack on free speech, arguing that the ruling threatens the ability of advocacy groups to organize and protest against corporate projects.

"This verdict is not just about Greenpeace—it's about the future of free speech and the right to protest," a Greenpeace spokesperson said. "Energy Transfer knew that a ruling in their favor would effectively silence one of their biggest opponents. This is a dangerous precedent for environmental activism and democratic dissent."

Critics argue that the hefty damages could embolden corporations to use litigation as a tool to suppress opposition to controversial projects. Meanwhile, Energy Transfer maintains that the lawsuit was necessary to hold Greenpeace accountable for what they describe as "reckless and harmful actions" during the pipeline protests.

Greenpeace has vowed to appeal the decision, claiming that the North Dakota jurisdiction was unfavorable and that the verdict was disproportionate.