Jury orders Greenpeace to pay $660M in damages to energy transfer

In a case seen in the U.S. state of North Dakota, a jury found the environmental organization Greenpeace guilty of defamation and ordered it to pay over $660 million in damages to an oil company.

Texas-based Energy Transfer sued Greenpeace nearly a decade ago, accusing the organization of trespassing, disturbing public order, and engaging in an illegal conspiracy following protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline.

The company claimed Greenpeace tried to financially harm Energy Transfer through an "illegal and violent plan." Greenpeace denied the accusations and announced it would appeal the decision.

GREENPEACE COULD GO BANKRUPT

Greenpeace stated that the court ruling could drive the organization into bankruptcy, potentially ending over 50 years of environmental activism.

The group clarified it did not lead the protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline but supported demonstrations initiated by local Native American leaders.

Protests began in 2016 near the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's land and grew into a massive movement with thousands of participants, including over 200 indigenous tribes, retired U.S. soldiers, artists, and political leaders.

After a two-day deliberation, the jury ruled against Greenpeace in the case, which was held in Mandan, about 160 kilometers north of the protest area.

"WE SUFFERED FINANCIAL DAMAGE"

In his closing statement, Energy Transfer's attorney Trey Cox stated that Greenpeace's actions caused between $265 million to $340 million in damage to the company and requested this amount, along with additional compensation, from the jury.

Meanwhile, Greenpeace's attorneys emphasized that the organization did not lead the protests but only supported "nonviolent direct action training."

Kristin Casper, Greenpeace's International Legal Advisor, reacted to the decision, saying, "If Energy Transfer thinks they can get rid of us, they are mistaken. Our fight will continue."

A SIGNIFICANT LEGAL PRECEDENT

University of Richmond Law Professor Carl Tobias noted that the ruling could have a chilling effect on environmental activists and public interest organizations. He said, "This decision could encourage similar lawsuits in other states."

Energy Transfer's case also includes Greenpeace's branches in the U.S. and the Netherlands. In response, Greenpeace filed a counter-lawsuit in the Netherlands, accusing the oil company of using the legal system to silence opposing voices.

Greenpeace is seeking full compensation for damages and expenses in a lawsuit it filed this month against Energy Transfer.