A jury in North Dakota has ruled against Greenpeace, holding the environmental organization liable for defamation and other allegations tied to its opposition to the Dakota Access Pipeline. The verdict, delivered on Wednesday by a nine-member jury, found Greenpeace responsible for significant damages sought by Energy Transfer, the Dallas-based company behind the controversial pipeline.

 

The legal battle stems from the widespread protests in 2016 and 2017 against the Dakota Access Pipeline’s route beneath the Missouri River, just upstream of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation. The tribe has long argued that the pipeline threatens their water supply, fueling a movement that drew international attention. Despite these concerns, the pipeline has been in operation since mid-2017, carrying crude oil across multiple states.

 

Energy Transfer and its subsidiary, Dakota Access, filed the lawsuit against Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA, and Greenpeace Fund Inc., accusing them of defamation, civil conspiracy, trespassing, nuisance, and other unlawful actions. The jury ultimately sided with the company, awarding them damages in the hundreds of millions.

 

 

Attorney Trey Cox, representing the plaintiffs, argued that Greenpeace engaged in a deliberate effort to halt the pipeline’s construction. During his opening statement, Cox alleged that Greenpeace provided funding to bring outside activists into the protest area, supplied materials for blockades, facilitated protest training sessions, and spread false information about the project to obstruct its progress.

 

Greenpeace, however, strongly denied these claims. Legal representatives for the organization maintained that there was no concrete evidence linking Greenpeace to the alleged misconduct. They asserted that Greenpeace employees had minimal to no direct involvement in the protests and insisted that the organization played no role in delaying the pipeline’s construction or affecting Energy Transfer’s financial operations.

 

Following the verdict, Greenpeace representatives described the case as a significant challenge to First Amendment rights, emphasizing that the lawsuit could set a dangerous precedent for free speech and protest activities. The organization expressed concern that the ruling could have far-reaching consequences, potentially threatening its ability to advocate for environmental causes in the future.

 

Energy Transfer, on the other hand, framed the lawsuit as a matter of legal accountability rather than an attack on free speech. A company spokesperson previously stated, "The lawsuit is about Greenpeace not following the law, not free speech."

 

The ruling marks a major legal victory for Energy Transfer and raises questions about the future of advocacy groups involved in high-profile environmental protests. As Greenpeace weighs its next legal steps, the outcome of this case may shape the landscape for activism and corporate accountability in the years to come.

 

 

Based on a report by NYP  2025-03-21

 

 

 

Excellent news.  Sue them till the pips squeak....

I vehemently disagree with the jury's verdict but will reluctantly accept it. 

Outstanding !

Slowly but surely the flush of history continues.

Greenpeace IMO tends to go too far. I applied to them to work at their proposed Antarctic base, but during the interview the Greenpeace guy was advocating for really dangerous activities against McMurdo. When I pointed that out to him, rather than accept advice from someone actually been there, he ended the interview and I did not get the job.

The courts on the side of big business, who'd have thought?

On 3/20/2025 at 2:01 PM, Social Media said:

 

A jury in North Dakota has ruled against Greenpeace, holding the environmental organization liable for defamation and other allegations tied to its opposition to the Dakota Access Pipeline. The verdict, delivered on Wednesday by a nine-member jury, found Greenpeace responsible for significant damages sought by Energy Transfer, the Dallas-based company behind the controversial pipeline.

 

The legal battle stems from the widespread protests in 2016 and 2017 against the Dakota Access Pipeline’s route beneath the Missouri River, just upstream of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation. The tribe has long argued that the pipeline threatens their water supply, fueling a movement that drew international attention. Despite these concerns, the pipeline has been in operation since mid-2017, carrying crude oil across multiple states.

 

Energy Transfer and its subsidiary, Dakota Access, filed the lawsuit against Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA, and Greenpeace Fund Inc., accusing them of defamation, civil conspiracy, trespassing, nuisance, and other unlawful actions. The jury ultimately sided with the company, awarding them damages in the hundreds of millions.

 

 

Attorney Trey Cox, representing the plaintiffs, argued that Greenpeace engaged in a deliberate effort to halt the pipeline’s construction. During his opening statement, Cox alleged that Greenpeace provided funding to bring outside activists into the protest area, supplied materials for blockades, facilitated protest training sessions, and spread false information about the project to obstruct its progress.

 

Greenpeace, however, strongly denied these claims. Legal representatives for the organization maintained that there was no concrete evidence linking Greenpeace to the alleged misconduct. They asserted that Greenpeace employees had minimal to no direct involvement in the protests and insisted that the organization played no role in delaying the pipeline’s construction or affecting Energy Transfer’s financial operations.

 

Following the verdict, Greenpeace representatives described the case as a significant challenge to First Amendment rights, emphasizing that the lawsuit could set a dangerous precedent for free speech and protest activities. The organization expressed concern that the ruling could have far-reaching consequences, potentially threatening its ability to advocate for environmental causes in the future.

 

Energy Transfer, on the other hand, framed the lawsuit as a matter of legal accountability rather than an attack on free speech. A company spokesperson previously stated, "The lawsuit is about Greenpeace not following the law, not free speech."

 

The ruling marks a major legal victory for Energy Transfer and raises questions about the future of advocacy groups involved in high-profile environmental protests. As Greenpeace weighs its next legal steps, the outcome of this case may shape the landscape for activism and corporate accountability in the years to come.

 

 

Based on a report by NYP  2025-03-21

 

 

 

Good news. I own ET stock.

4 hours ago, fasteddie said:

The courts on the side of big business, who'd have thought?

 

But... but... but.., juries are never wrong and always impartial... Unless their verdict goes the other way.