For activists, the ruling is a stark reminder of the risks involved in challenging powerful industries. For society, it raises urgent questions about the balance between corporate rights and democratic freedoms.
In a chilling precedent for environmental activism, a North Dakota jury has ordered Greenpeace to pay $660 million in damages to Energy Transfer, the company behind the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL).
This decision stems from Greenpeace’s involvement in protests against the pipeline, which began in 2016 and drew global attention to Indigenous rights and environmental protection. The ruling, announced on March 20, 2025, has sparked widespread debate and raised alarms about its potential impact on climate movements and freedom of protest.
The case centers on Greenpeace’s alleged role in defaming Energy Transfer and inciting disruptions during the protests. Energy Transfer accused Greenpeace of orchestrating a campaign of misinformation that led to financial losses and damage to its reputation. The jury agreed, awarding one of the largest-ever damages rulings against a non-governmental organization. Environmental groups and civil liberties advocates have condemned the decision, warning that it sets a dangerous precedent for targeting activism.
A Battle Over Land, Rights, and Oil
The Dakota Access Pipeline became a flashpoint for activism in 2016 when the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe opposed its construction, citing threats to their water supply and sacred sites. The protests, centered near the Standing Rock reservation, attracted thousands of demonstrators, including Indigenous leaders, environmentalists, and celebrities. The movement galvanized public attention and highlighted broader issues of fossil fuel dependence and Indigenous sovereignty.
Energy Transfer argued that Greenpeace’s involvement went beyond peaceful protest, accusing the organization of participating in a conspiracy to harm the company financially. The lawsuit, initially filed in 2017 under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, claimed that Greenpeace spread false information about the pipeline’s safety and encouraged illegal activities such as trespassing and property destruction. Greenpeace has consistently denied these allegations, asserting that its actions were lawful and aimed at raising awareness about the environmental and social risks of the pipeline.
The Verdict: A Chilling Message
The $660 million judgment represents a decisive victory for Energy Transfer and a severe blow to Greenpeace. Legal experts have noted that such an unprecedented damages award could embolden corporations to pursue similar lawsuits against activist groups. Greenpeace USA’s Executive Director, Annie Leonard, called the verdict “a dark day for democracy and the right to dissent.”
“This decision punishes those who dare to speak out against powerful industries,” Leonard said in a statement. “It’s a clear attempt to silence environmental advocates and discourage future movements from challenging corporate wrongdoing.”
Energy Transfer, on the other hand, framed the ruling as a victory for accountability. In a press release, the company stated, “This verdict affirms that misinformation and unlawful activities have consequences. We remain committed to providing safe and reliable energy infrastructure while protecting our reputation and interests.”
Implications for Activism
Environmental groups and civil rights organizations have decried the ruling as a grave threat to freedom of speech and the right to protest. Amnesty International called the verdict a “devastating blow to environmental activism,” warning that it could discourage grassroots movements from taking on powerful corporate interests. The Union of Concerned Scientists described the decision as a “slap in the face” to the broader environmental movement.
“This judgment sends a chilling message to all activists,” said Kate Cell, a senior campaigner with the Union of Concerned Scientists. “If corporations can use their deep pockets to silence dissent, it creates a dangerous imbalance of power and undermines the democratic principles that allow for peaceful protest.”
The ruling also raises questions about the use of the RICO Act against advocacy organizations. Originally designed to combat organized crime, the RICO Act has increasingly been used in civil lawsuits to target protest groups. Critics argue that this trend weaponizes the legal system against activists and creates a financial risk that many organizations cannot afford to bear.
Wake-Up Call to the Climate Movement
The $660 million verdict is not only a financial blow to Greenpeace but also a symbolic warning to the climate movement as a whole. Climate activists have long relied on public demonstrations, direct action, and media campaigns to pressure governments and corporations into addressing the climate crisis. This ruling could force organizations to reassess their strategies and approach to activism.
Some activists see the decision as a call to action. “This is a wake-up call for the entire climate movement,” said Bill McKibben, co-founder of 350.org. “We need to stand together and defend the right to protest. If we allow this precedent to stand, it will become even harder to hold corporations accountable for their role in the climate crisis.”
Others worry that the financial burden of such lawsuits could stifle smaller organizations and grassroots movements. Greenpeace, as one of the world’s largest environmental NGOs, may have the resources to appeal the decision and continue its work. But smaller groups, lacking the same financial backing, could be deterred from taking bold stances on controversial issues.
Legal Appeals and Public Support
Greenpeace has vowed to appeal the verdict, calling it a “miscarriage of justice.” Legal experts suggest that the case could eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court, where it may set an important precedent for the limits of corporate litigation against advocacy groups.
In the meantime, public support will be crucial for Greenpeace and other organizations facing similar challenges. Crowdfunding campaigns and solidarity statements have already begun circulating online, highlighting the global resonance of the case.
The verdict also underscores the need for stronger legal protections for activists. Advocacy groups are calling for legislative reforms to prevent the misuse of laws like RICO against peaceful protesters. Some lawmakers have expressed interest in exploring these issues, but any significant changes are likely to face resistance from powerful corporate lobbies.
Beyond the immediate legal and financial implications, the Greenpeace verdict has sparked a broader conversation about the role of activism in a democratic society. As climate change accelerates and public pressure on governments and corporations intensifies, the line between lawful advocacy and corporate defamation is becoming increasingly contested.
At a Crossroads
“We’re at a crossroads,” said Tara Houska, a tribal attorney and former advisor to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. “This case is about more than just Greenpeace or the Dakota Access Pipeline. It’s about the fundamental right to stand up for what you believe in and to hold those in power accountable.”
The ruling also highlights the growing tensions between the fossil fuel industry and the climate movement. As the world transitions to renewable energy, conflicts over oil and gas infrastructure are likely to become more frequent and contentious. How society chooses to navigate these disputes will shape the future of environmental advocacy and corporate accountability.
The North Dakota court’s decision against Greenpeace marks a pivotal moment for environmental activism and the climate movement. While Energy Transfer celebrates a legal victory, the broader implications of the $660 million verdict extend far beyond this single case. For activists, the ruling is a stark reminder of the risks involved in challenging powerful industries. For society, it raises urgent questions about the balance between corporate rights and democratic freedoms.
As Greenpeace prepares to fight the judgment in higher courts, the outcome of this case will not only determine the organization’s future but also set a precedent for how activism is treated in the face of corporate litigation. In the words of Annie Leonard, “The fight for a sustainable and just world has never been easy, but this ruling reminds us why it is so necessary.”
Image: Wikimedia
