ABSTRACT
In March 2025, a nine-person jury in Morton County, North Dakota awarded a verdict of almost $667M against Greenpeace USA, Greenpeace Foundation and Greenpeace International (hereafter, Greenpeace unless otherwise noted) and in favor of Energy Transfer LP and Dakota Access LLC, developers of the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). Despite Greenpeace’s claim that the lawsuit was a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or SLAPP suit, the jury found that all three Greenpeace entities defamed the companies and incited illegal behavior by anti-pipeline protesters.
In February 2025, just as the trial in North Dakota was about to start, Greenpeace International (GPI) filed the first lawsuit under the European Union’s Anti-SLAPP Directive. GPI, which is headquartered in the Netherlands, filed suit in the Amsterdam District Court claiming that Energy Transfer’s lawsuit is a baseless action designed to silence critics and punish opponents of its project.
Both lawsuits are still in process. On September 9, 2025, Judge James D Gion denied Energy Transfer’s motion for an anti-suit injunction seeking to block GPI’s suit in the Netherlands. On October 28, 2025, Judge Gion issued an order reducing the jury verdict to approximately $345 M. Both parties have indicated their intention to appeal this decision to the North Dakota Supreme Court. Greenpeace has vowed to pursue the First Amendment issues all the way to the US Supreme Court.
This battle pitting courts in the US and the EU over what constitutes a SLAPP suit is the first of its kind that promises to establish a new paradigm for transnational litigation involving confrontations between activists and developers of fossil fuel projects and other activities threatening environmental harm. This essay will explore the origins of the Energy Transfer v Greenpeace controversy, provide an overview of the issues raised in the competing lawsuits, and offer some observations on the future of environmental protests in a world of SLAPP and SLAPP-back lawsuits.
Update: On June 3, 2026 the Amsterdam District Court determined that it has jurisdiction over GPI’s claims against Energy Transfer and denied Energy Transfer’s attempt to dismiss or stay the case. The Court ruled that the action could proceed under Dutch law but could not rely on the EU anti-SLAPP directive which was not in effect at the time the GPI suit was filed.
Parenteau, Patrick A, SLAPP vs SLAPP-BACK: The Seismic Greenpeace Verdict and the Future of Environmental Protests, 29(6) Environmental Liability – Law, Policy and Practice 221 (October 20, 2025).
Leave a Reply