Greenpeace Faces Bankruptcy Threat in High-Stakes US Pipeline Trial

Greenpeace, the renowned environmental organization, is facing a legal battle that could result in its bankruptcy. The lawsuit, brought by Texas-based Energy Transfer, the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), seeks $300 million in damages, accusing Greenpeace of defamation, conspiracy, and unlawful activities during the protests against the controversial pipeline.

The Lawsuit and Its Stakes

The trial, which began on February 24, 2025, in North Dakota, centers around Greenpeace’s involvement in the 2016-2017 protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline. Energy Transfer claims that Greenpeace spread misinformation and incited illegal activities aimed at disrupting the pipeline’s construction. If the court rules in favor of Energy Transfer, Greenpeace could face severe financial repercussions, potentially leading to its bankruptcy.

According to Energy Transfer, Greenpeace’s actions amounted to an “eco-terrorism” campaign that falsely accused the company of threatening water sources and violating Indigenous rights. The lawsuit is based on allegations that Greenpeace and other environmental groups conspired to defame Energy Transfer, causing financial harm to the company.

Greenpeace has strongly denied these allegations, stating that the lawsuit is a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), meant to intimidate and silence environmental activists. “This case is about corporate power trying to shut down dissent and accountability,” Greenpeace USA said in a statement.

Background: The Dakota Access Pipeline Protests

The Dakota Access Pipeline, a 1,172-mile-long underground oil pipeline, was met with significant opposition from Indigenous groups, particularly the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, who argued that the pipeline threatened their water supply and sacred lands. The protests, which gained worldwide attention, led to clashes between demonstrators and law enforcement.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers initially halted the project in late 2016, citing the need for further environmental reviews (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). However, in 2017, the Trump administration fast-tracked the project, allowing its completion. The pipeline has since been the subject of ongoing legal disputes and regulatory challenges.

Legal Implications and the SLAPP Defense

Greenpeace argues that the lawsuit is part of a broader trend where corporations use legal action to suppress activism. The organization has labeled Energy Transfer’s claims as meritless and a threat to freedom of speech. In response, Greenpeace International has filed a countersuit in a Dutch court, seeking damages and a declaration that Energy Transfer’s lawsuit constitutes a SLAPP.

SLAPP lawsuits are increasingly used against journalists, activists, and advocacy groups to burden them with costly legal defenses. The European Union has recently introduced an anti-SLAPP directive to protect public interest advocacy and free speech (European Commission). If Greenpeace wins its countersuit in the Netherlands, it could strengthen legal protections for environmental and human rights activists worldwide.

The Broader Impact on Activism

Legal experts warn that a ruling in favor of Energy Transfer could set a dangerous precedent. If large corporations can sue environmental groups for defamation based on advocacy work, it could deter future protests and weaken environmental activism.

“This case is about more than just Greenpeace,” said Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University. “It’s about whether corporations can use the courts to silence criticism and activism.”

Environmental advocacy groups, including the Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth, have voiced their support for Greenpeace, calling the lawsuit an attack on democratic freedoms. Amnesty International has also condemned the case, stating that it represents a “corporate attempt to suppress environmental defenders.”

What’s Next?

The trial is expected to last several weeks, with both sides presenting extensive evidence. If Greenpeace loses, it may face severe financial consequences, potentially leading to operational cutbacks or even bankruptcy. The case also raises questions about corporate influence in legal proceedings and the limits of free speech in activism.

As the proceedings unfold, the outcome could have lasting ramifications for environmental movements, legal protections for advocacy groups, and the ability of corporations to challenge activism through the courts.

For official updates on the Dakota Access Pipeline and related environmental regulations, visit the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

This article has been carefully fact-checked by our editorial team to ensure accuracy and eliminate any misleading information. We are committed to maintaining the highest standards of integrity in our content.