A high-stakes Energy Transfer lawsuit seeking $300 million from Greenpeace International began Wednesday in Mandan, North Dakota, with opening arguments that could redefine protest rights in corporate disputes. The case centers on 2016-2017 Dakota Access Pipeline protests near Standing Rock Sioux lands, where environmental activists clashed with oil infrastructure developers.
Energy Transfer alleges Greenpeace orchestrated trespass, vandalism, and defamation during pipeline construction, while defendants counter that the Greenpeace trial represents a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP). Legal experts warn the outcome could set precedents for:
- Corporate liability claims against protest organizers
- First Amendment protections for environmental campaigns
- Financial risks for NGOs opposing energy projects
This isn’t about pipeline safety – it’s about silencing dissent through bankruptcy-by-litigation tactics,said Greenpeace Senior Legal Adviser Deepa Padmanabha.
Energy Transfer maintains its position through spokesperson Vicki Granado: Peaceful protest respects legal boundaries. When organizations allegedly incite illegal activity, accountability must follow. The company previously filed a similar federal case dismissed in 2019 before refiling in state court under different legal theories.
With jury selection completed Monday, the five-week trial will scrutinize 7-year-old protest coordination claims and their present-day implications. Observers note the case coincides with increased state-level legislation targeting pipeline protests, including enhanced penalties for critical infrastructure disruptions.
As energy companies and environmental groups await the verdict, this Energy Transfer lawsuit underscores growing tensions between corporate reputation management and activist speech rights. The $300 million damages claim – equivalent to Greenpeace USA’s 8-year operational budget – raises questions about proportionality in civil litigation against NGOs.
