Advertisement
A North Dakota judge has reduced the damages Greenpeace must pay to Energy Transfer from about USD 667 million to USD 345 million in the case linked to protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline. The court ruled that part of the earlier jury award was duplicative or excessive. The lawsuit accused Greenpeace of defamation, trespassing and conspiracy during protests held between 2016 and 2017. Greenpeace maintains that the claims are unfounded and that the case is an effort to intimidate activists opposing the company's operations.
A state court in North Dakota has lowered the compensation amount that Greenpeace owes to Energy Transfer in connection with the long-running dispute over the Dakota Access Pipeline. The jury's initial award of about USD 667 million was reduced to USD 345 million after Judge James Gion found that several parts of the verdict were either repetitive or legally excessive. The revised figure still represents one of the largest financial penalties ever imposed on an environmental group in the United States. Advertisement
The case traces back to the widespread protests that took place near the Standing Rock Indian Reservation in 2016 and 2017. Environmental activists and tribal communities had opposed the pipeline's construction, arguing that it posed serious risks to water sources and contributed to climate change. Despite opposition, the pipeline was completed in 2017 and now carries around 40 % of the oil produced in North Dakota's Bakken region.
Energy Transfer, based in Texas, filed the lawsuit in 2017, accusing Greenpeace of spreading false information, encouraging unlawful activities, and financing protesters to block construction. The claims included defamation, trespassing and conspiracy. The company asserted that Greenpeace's actions caused financial losses and reputational damage to its operations.
Greenpeace has rejected the allegations, saying the claims lack a legal foundation and that the case represents a wealthy corporation using the legal system to discourage public dissent. The group's interim general counsel, Marco Simons, said Greenpeace continues to believe that the remaining charges are unjustified and that the lawsuit was intended to suppress voices critical of Energy Transfer's business practices.
While Energy Transfer has not provided a detailed response to the court's latest decision, the company is expected to challenge the reduction. Legal experts note that such adjustments are not uncommon when courts review large jury awards for proportionality and legal consistency.
In a related move, Greenpeace filed a countersuit earlier this year in the Netherlands under European legislation designed to protect activists from lawsuits used to intimidate or silence them. That case remains ongoing.
Source Reuters
5th Jun, 2025
25th May, 2023
11th May, 2023
27th Apr, 2023
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
