Updated: [2th February, 2025] | 
Reading Time: 5 Min
Author: [Global World Citizen] | Published on: GlobalWorldCitizen.com
Topline
A high-stakes legal battle between Greenpeace and Energy Transfer, the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline, has reached trial, with Greenpeace warning that the lawsuit could bankrupt the organization. The case—centered around protests against the pipeline’s construction in 2016 and 2017—could have major implications for environmental activism and corporate legal strategies worldwide.
Key Facts & Developments
Jury Selection Begins – The trial officially kicked off on Monday in Morton County, North Dakota, where Energy Transfer’s $300 million lawsuit against Greenpeace will unfold over the next five weeks.
Allegations Against Greenpeace – Energy Transfer claims Greenpeace engaged in an “unlawful and violent scheme” to damage the company’s financial standing and physically harm its employees while attempting to block the pipeline’s construction.
Greenpeace Denies Claims, Citing Free Speech – The environmental group refutes the accusations, asserting it acted within its First Amendment rights and that the lawsuit is a corporate tactic to silence environmental activism.
Energy Transfer’s Counterargument – The company insists the lawsuit is not about free speech, but about holding Greenpeace accountable for illegal actions.
International Legal Battle Expands – Greenpeace has taken Energy Transfer to court in the Netherlands, arguing the pipeline company has engaged in a pattern of meritless lawsuits aimed at bankrupting the organization.
Could This Lawsuit Bankrupt Greenpeace?
If Energy Transfer wins, Greenpeace could face financial ruin. The company seeks $300 million in damages, a sum ten times Greenpeace’s annual budget.
“This could end over 50 years of environmental activism,” Greenpeace stated.
What’s at stake?
Financial survival of Greenpeace – Can the advocacy group withstand this legal attack? Impact on global activism – If Greenpeace loses, will other environmental groups face similar legal threats? Corporate use of lawsuits to silence critics – Could this set a dangerous precedent for companies suing activists?
What Is the Dakota Access Pipeline?
Project Overview: 1,170-mile pipeline transporting oil from North Dakota to Illinois $3.8 billion project operated by Energy Transfer Crosses near the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation & Lake Oahe
Why Did the Protests Happen? Tribal Concerns: The Standing Rock Sioux tribe argued the pipeline posed a threat to their drinking water. Environmental Risks: Activists raised alarms about potential oil spills affecting local ecosystems. Mass Arrests: Protests led to hundreds of arrests, making headlines worldwide.
Did Greenpeace Lead the Protests?
Greenpeace argues it played a limited role, with Native American groups leading the efforts. However, Energy Transfer insists Greenpeace was a key organizer.
The Decade-Long Legal War Between Energy Transfer & Greenpeace
2017: Energy Transfer sues Greenpeace for RICO violations, accusing it of engaging in organized crime tactics. 2019: Federal court dismisses the lawsuit, ruling no evidence supported Energy Transfer’s claims. 2024: Energy Transfer re-files the case in state court, adding new allegations of defamation, violence, and financial sabotage. 2025: Greenpeace sues Energy Transfer in the Netherlands, claiming the company is weaponizing lawsuits to silence critics.
The Bigger Picture: What This Means for Activism & Corporate Power
Why does this case matter beyond Greenpeace? Sets a legal precedent – Could other advocacy groups face similar lawsuits? Chilling effect on protests – Will companies use lawsuits to discourage activism? Future of environmental movements – Could Greenpeace’s potential bankruptcy weaken global climate advocacy?