What the Greenpeace Fine Means For the Future of Activism

The environmental organization Greenpeace was ordered to pay more than $660 million dollars to the Texas-based pipeline company Energy Transfer this week over its role in the Dakota Access Pipeline protests nearly a decade ago.  

The outcome was a blow to the environmental advocacy group, which has previously said that a lawsuit of this size could bankrupt its U.S. operations. 

Energy Transfer, the operator of the Dakota Access Pipeline, accused Greenpeace USA and International of playing a central role in organizing the resistance to the pipeline at Standing Rock in 2016 and 2017. The protests drew national attention as activists set up camp on land owned by Energy Transfer in an attempt to delay the project’s construction. Law enforcement responded by deploying water cannons, tear gas, and other weapons on unarmed protesters—injuring hundreds. Greenpeace denied the company’s claims, and has said the case is “one of the largest Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) cases ever filed.”

“Greenpeace played an extremely limited role at Standing Rock, and is proud of showing up in solidarity with Standing Rock activists,” Deepa Padmanabha, senior legal advisor for Greenpeace, said in a statement in February. The protests brought together thousands of activists from around the country who opposed the development of part of the Dakota Access Pipeline on the Standing Rock reservation. “At no time did Greenpeace engage in property destruction or violence. All claims to the contrary are a reckless disregard for the truth.”

Experts say that the success of the so-called SLAPP lawsuit—and heavy penalty Greenpeace was dealt—stands to silence other activists who speak up against big companies. “This verdict, especially given its scope, really changes the calculus for advocacy groups who are engaged in, not just environmental issues, but more generally, in advocacy,” says Jennifer Safstrom, director of the Stanton Foundation First Amendment Clinic at Vanderbilt Law School. “They too could face liability for their advocacy efforts.”

What are SLAPP Lawsuits?

SLAPP lawsuits are a type of strategic civil litigation aimed at silencing speech by burying an organization or private citizen in legal fees. The term was coined by two professors in the ‘90s, Safstrom says, who notes that the practice was created in large part to target environmental activists—so much so that the professors used another term, “eco-SLAPP,” to define the practice.

“It’s an abuse of the court system, not for a legitimate legal end, but to try to shut somebody up,” says Gabe Walters, an attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. The practice has grown in prominence in the last decade. EarthRights, a non-profit environmental law group, identified 152 cases by fossil fuel companies between 2012 and 2022 that used strategic lawsuits against critics. A report by the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE) documented 820 SLAPP suits in Europe as of August 2023, with 161 lawsuits filed in 2022, and 135 cases filed in 2021. (The European Union passed an anti-SLAPP directive in April 2024, which aims to provide safeguards against strategic lawsuits that target public participation.)

Thirty-five states and Washington D.C. have anti-SLAPP laws in place, though what protections they provide may vary. Some states require that verdicts be reached on expedited timelines, while others have implemented “fee shifting,” which allows a defendant to recover legal fees if they win their case. 

But in states that don’t have protections in place, the impact of a SLAPP lawsuit can be devastating for organizations and individuals alike. 

“The goal is not even necessarily to win in court,” says Walters. “Just having to defend a lawsuit can be financially ruinous for a private person or for a nonprofit advocacy organization because the costs of litigation are so high.” 

How are Environmental Groups Responding? 

Environmental groups have said they won’t back down from their work. 

In a statement released after the verdict was announced, EarthRights, said that the decision would not silence environmental advocacy. “EarthRights proudly joins Greenpeace USA in speaking up against brazen legal attacks and ensuring that the environmental movement only continues to grow stronger, despite the appalling result in North Dakota.” 

Rebecca Brown, president and CEO of the Center for International Environmental Law, said that “no abusive company, lawsuit, or court decision” would hinder the climate fight. “This misuse of the legal system stifles legitimate dissent and must be seen as a direct threat to environmental justice and democratic freedoms,” said Brown. “Such tactics will not deter us, they only strengthen our commitment to resistance and solidarity and defense of the constitutionally-protected right to protest.”

ClientEarth CEO Laura Clarke, said in a statement to TIME that the loss “highlights the growing trend of big polluters using the legal system to intimidate and silence critics.”

“The message they seek to convey is a deeply chilling one: that no organization that challenges polluting industries is safe.”  

Greenpeace has said it plans to challenge the ruling. The group’s international arm also filed a lawsuit in Dutch court against Energy Transfer in 2024—one of the first tests of the European Union’s newly-enacted anti-SLAPP Directive. “Energy Transfer hasn’t heard the last of us in this fight. We’re just getting started with our anti-SLAPP lawsuit against Energy Transfer’s attacks on free speech and peaceful protest,” Kristin Casper, Greenpeace International General Counsel, said in a statement.