Judge Orders Greenpeace To Pay $345m In Damages In Oil Pipeline Defamation Lawsuit
Nearly a decade after protests over the Dakota Access Pipeline gripped the nation, a North Dakota judge has moved to finalize a staggering financial penalty against Greenpeace — one that the environmental group says it cannot afford to pay.
In court papers filed Tuesday, Judge James Gion signaled he will formally order several Greenpeace entities to pay damages expected to total $345 million to pipeline developer Energy Transfer.
The figure stems from a jury verdict last year that initially awarded nearly $667 million before the judge reduced the amount by roughly half. While the latest filing did not list a final total, it clears the way for an appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court.
The case centers on demonstrations in 2016 and 2017 against the Dakota Access Pipeline’s Missouri River crossing, upstream of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation. Thousands of protesters gathered near the site, citing concerns about potential threats to the tribe’s water supply. The demonstrations drew global attention and became a flashpoint in debates over energy infrastructure, indigenous rights, and environmental activism.
Energy Transfer and its subsidiary Dakota Access sued Netherlands-based Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA, and Greenpeace Fund Inc., alleging defamation, conspiracy, trespass, nuisance, and tortious interference. A nine-person jury found Greenpeace USA liable on all counts, while the other two entities were found liable on several claims.
Before the reduction, Greenpeace USA alone faced a $404 million share of the damages. In financial disclosures late last year, the organization stated it had only $1.4 million in cash and total assets of $23 million as of December 31, 2024 — far short of what would be required to satisfy the judgment. The group warned that enforcement of the full amount would jeopardize its ability to continue operations.
Greenpeace’s interim general counsel, Marco Simons, reiterated this week that the organization lacks the resources to pay “hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.” He emphasized that the legal fight is far from over and pointed to multiple potential grounds for appeal, including alleged evidentiary shortcomings and fairness concerns.
Energy Transfer, for its part, has previously defended the jury’s findings as “lawful and just” and indicated it intends to appeal the reduced damages, seeking restoration of the original award.
With Judge Gion’s order expected to trigger a formal appeals process, the case now enters a new phase — one that could have lasting implications for corporate liability claims against activist organizations and for the boundaries between protest activity and legal accountability.