Jury says Greenpeace owes hundreds of millions of dollars for Dakota pipeline protest

Npr - Mar 19th, 2025

A North Dakota jury has held Greenpeace liable for defamation, trespassing, and other charges, awarding Energy Transfer, the developer of the Dakota Access oil pipeline, approximately $660 million in damages. The case stems from Greenpeace's involvement in protests against the pipeline nearly a decade ago, which Energy Transfer claims increased construction costs by at least $300 million and harmed its public image. Greenpeace argues that the lawsuit is an attack on free speech, intending to silence environmental advocacy, and plans to appeal the decision.

This verdict raises significant concerns about the limits of free speech and the potential chilling effect on environmental activism. The case highlights the tension between corporate interests and protestors' rights, with implications for future advocacy efforts, especially those related to environmental and climate issues. Legal experts warn that the decision sets a precedent for holding advocacy groups liable for substantial damages, potentially discouraging public protest and affecting the dynamics of social activism across various domains.

Free Speech Greenpeace Protests Defamation Dakota Access Pipeline Energy Transfer Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Environmental Activism

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.8

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a comprehensive overview of the jury verdict against Greenpeace, highlighting the significant damages awarded and the potential implications for environmental activism and free speech. It presents a balanced perspective by including viewpoints from both Greenpeace and Energy Transfer, although it could benefit from more independent sources to enhance credibility. The story is timely and addresses issues of public interest, such as corporate accountability and the limits of protest rights. While the article is clear and engaging, it could improve transparency by providing more context on the legal proceedings and the basis for the claims made. Overall, the article effectively informs readers about a complex legal case with far-reaching consequences.

Accuracy

The story accurately reports the jury's verdict against Greenpeace, including the specific charges of defamation and trespassing, and the awarded damages of approximately $660 million. These details align with the factual claims from multiple sources. The article correctly identifies Greenpeace's response and intent to appeal, as well as the broader implications for free speech and protest rights. However, the extent of Greenpeace's involvement and the financial impact on the organization are areas needing further verification. The claims about the lawsuit being a SLAPP and its potential chilling effect on future protests are presented as Greenpeace's perspective, which requires further context and source support.

Balance

The article presents viewpoints from both Greenpeace and Energy Transfer, providing a balanced perspective on the legal battle. Greenpeace's concerns about free speech and the potential chilling effect on protests are highlighted, while Energy Transfer's claims of financial harm and the need for accountability are also covered. However, the article could benefit from more perspectives, such as those of legal experts or independent observers, to provide a more nuanced analysis of the case's implications. The focus on Greenpeace's narrative might slightly overshadow Energy Transfer's position, though both sides are represented.

Clarity

The article is well-structured and presents information in a clear and logical sequence. It effectively outlines the main events, the legal verdict, and the responses from involved parties. The language is straightforward, making complex legal issues accessible to a general audience. However, the article could improve clarity by providing more background on the legal concepts involved, such as defamation and SLAPP suits, to enhance reader understanding. The tone remains neutral, avoiding sensationalism, which aids in maintaining clarity.

Source quality

The article relies on statements from key stakeholders, including Greenpeace representatives and Energy Transfer officials, which are credible sources for their respective positions. However, the reliance on direct quotes from involved parties may introduce bias. The inclusion of insights from legal experts, like Jennifer Safstrom and Josh Galperin, adds credibility, but the article could improve by citing independent investigative reports or court documents to corroborate the claims made by both sides. The absence of such sources limits the depth of the analysis.

Transparency

The article provides transparency by quoting representatives from Greenpeace and Energy Transfer, clearly attributing statements to them. However, it lacks detailed context about the legal proceedings or specific evidence presented in court, which would help readers understand the basis for the jury's decision. The article does not disclose any potential conflicts of interest from the sources, nor does it delve into the methodology behind the lawsuit's claims or Greenpeace's defense, which affects the transparency of the reporting.