Greenpeace Facing $660M Fine: Will They Appeal?

Greenpeace Ordered $660M Defamation Verdict in Lawsuit Filed by Energy Transfer

A jury in North Dakota recently ordered activist group Greenpeace to compensate more than $660 million in damages after a defamation lawsuit filed by Dakota Access Pipeline owner Energy Transfer. The suit, filed almost a decade after pipeline protests, alleges trespassing, conspiracy and other misconduct on the part of Greenpeace in opposition to the building of the pipeline.

The ruling, delivered on March 19 by a bench of nine judges after two days of deliberation, is one of the biggest fines ever handed out to an environmental group. Greenpeace, one of the leaders of international green politics for nearly three decades, intends to appeal the verdict. The case is about the protests, starting in 2016, by Native American communities, such as the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, who mobilized to stop the pipeline, believing that it was threatening their water supply and sacred grounds. The protests escalated, and the case gained international attention, as thousands of activists, including politicians, actors, and veterans, swarmed to the cause.

The encampment protest on the pipeline facility had reached a peak with more than 10,000 demonstrators, and more than 200 Native American groups had joined in the protest. The protest continued until February 2017 when the law enforcement authorities drove out the protesters after a series of clashes between police officers and demonstrators. The legal suit between Energy Transfer and Greenpeace is the outcome of the pipeline campaign. Besides defamation, Energy Transfer also alleges that Greenpeace did a tremendous number of things that caused economic damage, such as allegedly denying access to property and promoting illegal behavior.

Energy Transfer, the owner of the 1,172-mile pipeline, had claimed damages incurred during the protests. The 2017 Dakota Access Pipeline has been marred by judicial and environmental scandals throughout its existence. It lacks a key permit to operate under Lake Oahe in South Dakota, and local Native American communities continue to demand additional environmental analyses on the project. The pipeline has continued to operate despite judicial setbacks, even as protests continue unabated.

Greenpeace warned that the suit would bankrupt the group, leaving its future existence in doubt. Greenpeace, in its post-verdict statement, characterized the case as one of a wider trend of corporate efforts at silencing free speech and suppressing peaceful protest. Greenpeace cautioned that these suits have long-term effects on activists and environmental groups.

The case highlights increasing conflict between the interests of business and the freedom of groups and individuals to protest against operations they believe are inimical to the environment. While Greenpeace intends to appeal the decision, the decision in the case has broader implications for future protests about fossil fuel ventures and the role of business. The case also produced broader debate over the amount of control to be exercised over the legal framework by corporations as well as maintaining protest rights within the United States.

The $660 million defamation lawsuit against Greenpeace is a milestone in the decades-long struggle between corporate influence and the freedom to protest. Since the environmental organization has indicated that it will appeal, the ruling in this case could have far-reaching precedents in subsequent protest rights and corporate influence court cases.

Source: Al Jazeera, BBC