Organisations and campaigners across the climate justice movement are joining forces to counter the wider chilling effect of a major legal blow that could bankrupt one of its largest players.

Earlier this week, a jury in the US state of North Dakota found Greenpeace International and its US bodies guilty of a mix of defamation, trespass, nuisance and conspiracy – and ordered them to pay more than US$660 million in damages to oil pipeline company Energy Transfer.

The lawsuit related to protests against the Dakota Access pipeline in 2016 and 2017. These actions, centered around the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, brought Indigenous activists fighting for water rights together with climate campaigners challenging the company’s planned transmission of oil from North Dakota to Illinois. They did not stop the pipeline from being completed, but caused major disruption.

Energy Transfer had previously sought damages against Greenpeace and others in a federal lawsuit that was dismissed in 2019.

But this time the claim was successful. Energy Transfer’s legal team successfully argued during the court proceedings that Greenpeace had “incited” the disruption. Greenpeace contended that its US bodies only played a small role, and the international group itself merely signed a letter opposing the project.

Greenpeace planning fight-back

Energy Transfer called it “a resounding verdict”, declaring Greenpeace’s actions “wrong, unlawful, and unacceptable by societal standards”, adding that it “is a day of reckoning and accountability for Greenpeace”. But Greenpeace US bodies have said they will appeal and Greenpeace International is “weighing all legal options”.

Greenpeace, which has campaigned on a wide range of environmental matters since the 1970s, acknowledges there is a risk of bankruptcy due to the damages awarded against it. However, it maintains this is “very remote” for its international arm whose assets are located in the Netherlands, where the verdict is “very unlikely to be recognised by Dutch courts”. Greenpeace’s 25 other branches around the world are expected to keep functioning as normal.

The case has been classified as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP). These cases, which arose in the United States in the 1970s and ’80s, can take various forms across different jurisdictions. But legal experts say they are an increasingly popular “lawfare” tactic used by powerful companies and individuals around the world – and many cases relate to the environment.

Clean hydrogen hype fades as high costs dampen demand

Sushma Raman, the interim executive director of Greenpeace’s US-based organisations Greenpeace Inc and Greenpeace Fund, said the ruling was part of a “renewed push by corporations to weaponise our courts to silence dissent”. She added that lawsuits like this are aimed at “destroying our rights to peaceful protest and free speech”.

“Deeply flawed trial”

Some concerns have centred around the legal proceedings themselves. A trial monitoring committee of independent lawyers concluded that it had been “a deeply flawed trial with multiple due process violations that denied Greenpeace the ability to present anything close to a full defense”. It claims the jury was “patently biased” because many members work in the fossil fuel industry and the judge lacked knowledge on the complex constitutional issues at the heart of the case.

Speaking in a personal capacity, Charlie Holt, European lead at Global Climate Legal Defense and a former legal advisor for Greenpeace International, told Climate Home the decision was shocking, if not surprising. “There’s still an understandable desire to trust in the judicial system. But I think we could see how urgent a threat [the lawsuit] was,” he said.

“This kind of activity is becoming increasingly common across climate action, with fossil fuel actors undermining progress wherever possible,” said Brice Böhmer, climate and environment lead at non-profit Transparency International.

SLAPP lawsuits proliferate

Holt agreed, warning of copycat cases. “The big fear is that this will embolden other fossil fuel companies to try their luck with these large-scale SLAPPS as a means of shutting down criticism,” he said.

SLAPPs are on the rise in Europe too, but as a jurisdiction it is generally less sympathetic to such claims.

In December, Greenpeace UK and Greenpeace International reached an out-of-court settlement in a legal dispute centered on the environmental group’s activism on an off-shore oil production vessel. It was one of the biggest ever legal threats against Greenpeace.

Food systems are the missing ingredient from the COP30 menu

Last March, oil and gas company TotalEnergies was ordered to pay €15,000 ($16,200) in costs to Greenpeace France after failing to sue the NGO over a report claiming that the energy giant massively underestimated its 2019 greenhouse gas emissions.

Emboldened by decisions like this, Greenpeace International is counter-suing Energy Transfer in the Netherlands, seeking to recover all costs and damages. If successful, it would be the first application of a new EU anti-SLAPP Directive.

Counter-suit in Dutch court

Kristin Casper, Greenpeace International’s general counsel, said the organisation is “just getting started” and would see Energy Transfer in court in Amsterdam this July. “We will not back down,” she said. “We will not be silenced.”

Anne Jellema, chief executive of climate campaign group 350.org, said the judgment should serve as a “wake-up call” to the entire climate movement, coming alongside a potential unleashing of new fossil fuel production and rollback of environmental protection in the US.

“The ruling sends a dangerous message to environmental organisations worldwide: that corporate polluters can weaponise the courts to silence opposition,” said Jellema, adding that it is “especially concerning” for smaller, frontline groups operating in regions without strong legal protections.

“If one of the world’s most prominent environmental organisations can face financial ruin for speaking out, smaller movements with fewer resources are even more vulnerable,” she said.

Holt said Greenpeace has been mobilising civil society organisations behind US and European anti-SLAPP coalitions since the first claim over the Dakota Access Pipeline in 2017. An open letter to Energy Transfer expressing solidarity with Greenpeace was signed by 450 organisations around the world.

The post Greenpeace’s $660m damages ruling a ‘wake-up call’ to climate movement appeared first on Climate Home News.

Greenpeace’s $660m damages ruling a ‘wake-up call’ to climate movement