Particle.news
Download on the App Store
11 ARTICLES
·
last mo.

Greenpeace Ordered to Pay Hundreds of Millions in Defamation Case Over Dakota Access Pipeline Protests

A North Dakota jury found Greenpeace liable for defamation and other claims, raising concerns about free speech and the future of environmental activism.

FILE - In this Nov. 2, 2016, file photo, dozens of protestors demonstrating against the expansion of the Dakota Access Pipeline wade in cold creek waters confronting local police, near Cannon Ball, N.D. Federal and state lawyers will meet in North Dakota next week to negotiate a settlement for money that the state claims it spent on policing protests against the Dakota Access oil pipeline. North Dakota filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 2019, seeking to recover more than $38 million in damages from the monthslong pipeline protests almost five years ago. (AP Photo/John L. Mone, File)
FILE - Dakota Access pipeline protesters defy law enforcement officers who are trying to force them from a camp on private land in the path of pipeline construction, Oct. 27, 2016, near Cannon Ball, N.D. (AP Photo/James MacPherson, File)
Image
Members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and their supporters opposed to the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) confront bulldozers working on the new oil pipeline in an effort to make them stop on September 3, 2016, near Cannon Ball, North Dakota

Overview

  • The jury awarded Energy Transfer hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, holding Greenpeace accountable for defamation and other claims related to the Dakota Access Pipeline protests.
  • Energy Transfer accused Greenpeace of orchestrating a misinformation campaign and inciting protests to disrupt the pipeline's construction in 2016 and 2017.
  • Greenpeace denied the allegations, emphasizing its minimal involvement in the protests and framing the lawsuit as a threat to free speech and protest rights.
  • The environmental group expressed concerns about jury bias, noting ties to the fossil fuel industry among jurors and local hostility toward anti-pipeline protests.
  • The case has broader implications for activism, with legal experts calling it a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) intended to silence critics and deter future advocacy.