North Dakota Jury Awards $667 Million Against Greenpeace in DAPL Case

In March 2025, Greenpeace lost a significant lawsuit brought by Energy Transfer LP, the parent company of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The case, decided in North Dakota state court, resulted in a nearly $667 million verdict against three Greenpeace entities. Greenpeace Inc. must pay $404 million, while Greenpeace Fund Inc. and Greenpeace International are jointly responsible for $131 million. The ruling is expected to bankrupt Greenpeace Inc., the U.S. arm of the Netherlands based organization.¹

The lawsuit stemmed from Greenpeace’s role in the 2016–2017 Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) protests, with the bulk of the damages awarded based on the defamation and defamation per se claims. However, Greenpeace Inc. was also found liable for trespass to land and chattel, conversion, nuisance, civil conspiracy, and tortious interference.²

In a statement following the verdict, Sushma Raman, Interim Executive Director of Greenpeace Inc. and Greenpeace Fund, called the decision "a clear-cut example of SLAPPs"—or strategic lawsuits against public participation. She claimed that the case exemplified how corporations use litigation to burden activists with legal costs and suppress protest.³

Attorneys for Energy Transfer offered a different interpretation. Gregg Costa, lead litigator from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, said “This verdict serves as a powerful affirmation of the First Amendment, which we embraced during trial because peaceful protest is a vital American right. But violent destructive protest and spreading lies is unlawful and unacceptable.”⁴

The DAPL protests centered around a 1,172-mile crude oil pipeline crossing North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and ending in Illinois. A major point of contention was the pipeline’s crossing under the Missouri River upstream of the Standing Rock Reservation, a major water source for the Tribe.⁵ The protests highlighted issues of tribal sovereignty, Indigenous rights, and access to clean water. Protesters established a camp near the construction site, leading to months of demonstrations.⁶ While many protests were peaceful, some individuals vandalized and damaged equipment.⁷ Law enforcement responded with tear gas, rubber bullets, dogs, and water hoses in freezing temperatures, and hundreds were arrested.⁸

Energy Transfer initially filed a federal lawsuit in 2017 in the District of North Dakota, alleging that Greenpeace and others had engaged in a racketeering conspiracy under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.⁹ The suit also included claims of defamation and alleged that protest groups were funded through sale of illegal narcotics.¹⁰ In 2019, the federal court dismissed all RICO and defamation claims, and dismissed the state law claims without prejudice—meaning that the case could be brought again, but only concerning the state law claims.¹¹

Within a week of the federal dismissal, Energy Transfer filed a state-level lawsuit in North Dakota court, focusing on tort claims such as aiding and abetting trespass and conversion.¹² The litigation process was protracted, marked by changes in judges, discovery disputes requiring a special master, and frequent rescheduling.¹³ The defamation claims were ultimately narrowed to only nine statements.

Greenpeace filed a motion to change venue in early 2025, citing concerns about potential juror bias stemming from a political mailer and the lack of public access to trial proceedings.¹⁴ Despite these concerns, the trial commenced on February 24, 2025. After two days of deliberations, the jury returned its verdict on March 19.¹⁵

The decision is likely to have lasting impacts on protest-related litigation, particularly for environmental advocacy organizations. In the words of the executive directors of Greenpeace USA and the ACLU, “the case attempts to establish the idea that, for any participation in a protest, you can be held liable for the actions of other people, even if you’re not associated with them or if they’re never identified.”¹⁶

Greenpeace has stated they intend to appeal this case to the North Dakota Supreme Court.¹⁷ Greenpeace has also filed a countersuit in Amsterdam to try and use novel European Union anti-SLAPP laws to mitigate the damages of Energy Transfer’s victory.¹⁸

¹ Lisa Friedman, Greenpeace Ordered to Pay $667 Million in Dakota Access Pipeline Verdict, N.Y. Times (Mar. 19, 2025).
² Special Verdict Form, Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace Int’l, No. 30-2019-0V-00180, (N.D. Dist. Ct. 2025).
³ Jury Delivers Verdict Finding Greenpeace Entities Liable for More Than US $660 Million in Energy Transfer SLAPP Trial, Greenpeace (Mar. 19, 2025).
⁴ Ross Todd, Litigators of the Week: The Developer of the Dakota Access Pipeline Hits Greenpeace with a $667M Trial Verdict, The AM L. Litig. Daily, (Mar. 21, 2025).
⁵ Jack Dura, Feds Leave Future of Dakota Access Pipeline’s Controversial River Crossing Unclear in Draft Review, AP News (Sep. 8, 2023).
⁶ Blake Nicholson, Pipeline Protest Arrests Strain North Dakota's Court System, Associated Press (Nov. 29, 2016).
⁷ Dakota Access, LLC v. Archambault, No. 16-cv-296, 2016 WL 5107005 (D.N.D. 2016).

⁸ Daniella Silva, Dakota Pipeline Protesters, Authorities Clash as Temperatures Drop, NBC News (Nov. 21, 2016).
⁹ Energy Transfers Compl., Energy Transfer Equity, LP v. Greenpeace Int'l, No. 17-cv-00173, 2018 WL 4677787 (D.N.D. 2018).
¹⁰ Id. at 5.
¹¹ Id. at 12.
¹² Initial Complaint, Energy Transfers Compl., Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace Int’l, No. 30-2019-0V-00180, (N.D. Dist. Ct. 2025).
¹³ Memorandum Opinion on Motion to Amend Compl. at 1–2, Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace Int’l, No. 30-2019-0V-00180, (N.D. Dist. Ct. 2025).
¹⁴ Mary Steurer, Judge Denies Greenpeace Request to Investigate Mailer Critical of DAPL Protests, N.D. Monitor (Jan. 3, 2025).
¹⁵ Friedman, supra note 1.
¹⁶ Sushma Raman and Anthony Romero, The North Dakota ruling against Greenpeace is a Threat to Free Speech, The Guardian (Mar. 25, 2025).
¹⁷ Energy Transfer Lawsuit Verdict, Greenpeace (Mar. 20, 2025).
¹⁸ Lisa Friedman, Greenpeace Faces $667 Million Verdict in Dakota Access Pipeline Lawsuit, N.Y. Times (Aug. 20, 2024).