Subscribe
- NEWSNEWS
- OPINIONOPINION
- WATCH
- BUSINESS
- FEATURES
- DONATE
- ABOUT USABOUT US
- PUBLICATIONSPUBLICATIONS
It’s a case of dejavu all over again.
Except for Greenpeace, which could be on the hook for hundreds of millions in damages to a US pipeline company in what legal observers are calling a “landmark” case regarding the role of legal activism.
That’s because a North Dakota jury on Wednesday ruled that the UK-based environmental group must pay hundreds of millions of dollars in damages to Energy Transfer, the company behind the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL).
The ruling is being hailed by the oil and gas industry as a victory, while environment groups warn it sets a dangerous precedent for punishing activism and peaceful protest against fossil fuels.
The case — widely viewed as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) — targeted Greenpeace for allegedly inciting protests against the pipeline nearly a decade ago.
Protests at Standing Rock in 2016 and 2017 became a global symbol of resistance against fossil fuel expansion. The protests were closely tied with opposition to Keystone XL.
Led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, the demonstrations drew thousands of supporters who opposed the DAPL’s threat to indigenous lands and water sources. Authorities instead responded with militarized force, and now, years later, have sought to punish Greenpeace for its alleged role in amplifying the cause.
Greenpeace has denied all claims of wrongdoing and maintains that the lawsuit was never about justice but rather about crushing dissent. “This case was designed to send a message: If you stand up to Big Oil, you will be punished,” said Deepa Padmanabha, Greenpeace’s senior legal adviser.
The verdict comes amid increasing efforts to criminalize environmental activism across North America. In Canada, where the oil sands industry has faced growing resistance, similar tactics have been employed to silence dissent.
The Canadian government, working closely with the fossil fuel industry, has repeatedly targeted activists and Indigenous groups protesting projects like the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. Protesters have been met with police crackdowns, sweeping injunctions, and mounting legal pressure.
Adding to the suppression, politicians and oil industry groups have pushed narratives blaming foreign influence — particularly from the US — for funding and organizing anti-pipeline protests.
The Alberta government under former Premier Jason Kenney, launched a widely criticized public inquiry into so-called “anti-energy” campaigns, alleging that foreign money from US environmental organizations was being funneled into Canada to disrupt oil sands development.
The inquiry ultimately failed to prove any illegal activity, yet it contributed to a growing climate of hostility toward activists.
Energy Transfer first pursued its claims under federal racketeering laws in 2017, likening Greenpeace’s advocacy to organized crime. When the federal case was dismissed in 2019, the company simply refiled in North Dakota state court, where it faced a more sympathetic legal environment.
The case was further tainted by evidence of industry influence over the proceedings. During the trial, it was revealed that Energy Transfer’s billionaire founder, Kelcy Warren, had offered financial incentives — including cash payments and a new school — to the Standing Rock Sioux in an attempt to halt the protests.
When the tribe refused, Warren suggested they had been offered even more money by environmental groups — a claim environmentalists say is absurd and a deliberate effort to smear their cause.
Nonetheless, the ruling against Greenpeace has sent shockwaves through the environmental and nonprofit communities. Legal experts warn that it could embolden corporations to use similar lawsuits to intimidate and financially drain advocacy groups.
Greenpeace has vowed to fight back, with plans to appeal the ruling. Meanwhile, activists across North America are bracing for a future in which fossil fuel companies, backed by governments, increasingly use the legal system as a weapon to silence opposition while oil companies are breathing a sigh of relief.
