Greenpeace ordered to pay hundreds of millions in damages to oil firm

BBC - Mar 19th, 2025

A North Dakota jury has found Greenpeace liable for defamation, ordering it to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in damages to Energy Transfer, a Texas-based oil company. The lawsuit stemmed from Greenpeace's involvement in protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline nearly a decade ago. Energy Transfer accused Greenpeace of orchestrating an 'unlawful and violent scheme' to inflict financial harm upon the company. Greenpeace, which could face bankruptcy due to the $300 million in damages, has contended that the lawsuit poses a threat to free speech, asserting that it did not lead the protests. The verdict was reached by a nine-person jury after two days of deliberation and was delivered at the Morton County courthouse in Mandan, North Dakota.

The protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline, which gained international attention during President Donald Trump's first term, drew thousands to the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. The demonstrations, which included participation from over 200 Native American tribes and notable figures like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., aimed to prevent the pipeline from passing near the reservation. Despite Greenpeace's claims that it did not lead the protests, the verdict underscores the potential financial and operational impacts on environmental activism, raising concerns about the balance between corporate interests and free speech in the context of environmental advocacy.

Protests Defamation Greenpeace Free Speech Dakota Access Pipeline Energy Transfer Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Standing Rock Sioux Reservation Environmental Activism

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.2

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article effectively covers a significant legal verdict involving Greenpeace and Energy Transfer, addressing key issues such as environmental activism, corporate accountability, and free speech. While the article is timely and covers a topic of public interest, it could benefit from greater source transparency and balance. The lack of detailed sourcing and counterarguments from Greenpeace limits the depth of analysis, though the article remains clear and accessible. Overall, it provides a solid overview of the case but would be strengthened by additional context and expert perspectives.

Accuracy

The story presents key factual elements such as Greenpeace being found liable for defamation and ordered to pay damages to Energy Transfer. These claims align with verified sources, indicating a high level of truthfulness. However, the article could improve by providing more detailed information on the specific allegations against Greenpeace and the evidence presented during the trial. Additionally, the claim about Greenpeace potentially facing bankruptcy due to the damages lacks specific financial context, which could help verify its accuracy.

Balance

The article presents the perspectives of both Greenpeace and Energy Transfer, offering a basic level of balance. However, it leans towards the legal outcome without delving deeply into Greenpeace's defense or the broader implications for environmental activism and free speech. The omission of detailed counterarguments from Greenpeace or other environmental groups suggests a potential imbalance in presenting the full spectrum of viewpoints.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, presenting information in a logical sequence. The language is straightforward, aiding comprehension. However, it could benefit from additional background information on the Dakota Access Pipeline protests and the legal context to enhance reader understanding of the case's significance.

Source quality

The article does not cite specific sources or provide direct quotes from involved parties, which limits the assessment of source quality. The lack of attribution to primary sources such as court documents, statements from Greenpeace, or Energy Transfer reduces the reliability of the information. Including a variety of authoritative sources could enhance the article's credibility.

Transparency

The article lacks transparency in terms of methodology and source disclosure. It does not explain how information was obtained or provide insights into potential conflicts of interest. Greater transparency about the article's information-gathering process and the author's background would improve its trustworthiness.