MANDAN, N.D. – A significant legal battle has concluded with environmental group Greenpeace being ordered to pay over $660 million in damages for defamation and other claims brought against them by a pipeline company in North Dakota. The lawsuit, filed by Dallas-based Energy Transfer and its subsidiary Dakota Access, accused Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA, and Greenpeace Fund Inc. of various charges including defamation, trespass, and civil conspiracy.
The jury’s decision came after allegations of Greenpeace engaging in activities aimed at disrupting the construction of the Dakota Access oil pipeline, leading to a lengthy legal battle between the two parties. With Greenpeace USA being found liable for all counts, the organization faces substantial damages that will be distributed among the entities involved.
In response to the verdict, Greenpeace expressed its commitment to continuing their work despite the significant financial setback. The organization’s senior legal adviser, Deepa Padmanabha, emphasized that the fight against Big Oil will persist, highlighting the importance of their ongoing efforts to advocate for environmental causes.
Following the ruling, Greenpeace announced plans to appeal the decision, signaling their determination to contest the outcome of the lawsuit. Despite the hefty damages awarded to Energy Transfer, Greenpeace International General Counsel Kristin Casper asserted that the battle against corporate influence will continue, setting the stage for further legal proceedings in the future.
The damages awarded by the jury amount to nearly $666.9 million, with Greenpeace USA facing the largest portion of the financial penalty. Energy Transfer hailed the verdict as a victory for the rule of law, emphasizing the distinction between legitimate forms of protest and unlawful behavior that disrupts public order.
The legal conflict stems from protests dating back to 2016 and 2017 against the Dakota Access Pipeline, which has been met with opposition from various groups concerned about its potential impact on the environment. The pipeline’s construction led to widespread demonstrations, prompting legal action from Energy Transfer against Greenpeace for their alleged involvement in obstructing the project.
As both parties prepare for further legal proceedings, the case represents a contentious battle between environmental activists and corporate interests, underscoring the complex dynamics surrounding energy infrastructure projects in the United States. The outcome of the lawsuit highlights the ongoing tensions between environmental advocacy groups and companies seeking to develop key infrastructure projects amid mounting concerns about climate change and environmental protection.