Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International

A North Dakota trial court granted in part and denied in part Greenpeace entities’ motions for judgment as a matter of law and to reduce damages awarded to the developers and owner of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The court’s decision on the motions reduced the damages of almost $667 million awarded by the jury to $345,358,436. The court disallowed the jury’s verdict as to the pipeline developers’ claims of trespass to land and aiding and abetting trespass to land, finding that there was no evidence that the developers possessed any interest in real estate. In addition, the court disallowed claims against both the developers and owner for conversion and aiding and abetting conversion, finding that there was no evidence showing that equipment was disabled for a significant period of time. The court also disallowed claims of defamation per se as duplicative of the defamation claim. The court denied the Greenpeace entities’ motion for judgment as a matter of law on the pipeline owner’s claims of trespass to land and aiding and abetting trespass to land, as well as all claims by all plaintiffs of trespass to chattel and aiding and abetting trespass to chattel, nuisance and aiding and abetting nuisance, conspiracy, defamation, and tortious interference with business claims. The court reduced damages for the conspiracy claims; limited exemplary damages for the developers on the trespass to chattels, aiding and abetting trespass to chattels, nuisance, and aiding and abetting nuisance claims; and disallowed all exemplary damages for the defamation claims. North Dakota Monitor <a href="https://northdakotamonitor.com/2025/10/29/judge-slashes-jury-damages-in-greenpeace-case-to-345-million/">reported</a> that plaintiffs plan to appeal the reductions in the defamation and conspiracy damages and that the defendants intended to ask for a new trial after entry of final judgment and to appeal if that request is unsuccessful.

The North Dakota District Court denied the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) developers’ request for an anti-suit injunction prohibiting Greenpeace International (GPI) from proceeding with an action against the developers in the Netherlands under the European Union’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) directive. A District Court jury found in March 2025 that GPI and other Greenpeace defendants were liable for almost $667 million in compensatory and exemplary damages to the developers for actions related to DAPL protests. In its order denying the anti-suit injunction, the court found that the threshold considerations for an injunction were not satisfied. Although the parties in the North Dakota and Dutch case were the same, the court found that the issues were different since the Dutch case involved defamation allegations by GPI against the developers and since North Dakota does not recognize a SLAPP or anti-SLAPP action. The court also found that the Dutch action’s frustration of a policy in the North Dakota court was “not a certainty” and declined to find that the Dutch action was vexatious or that it threatened North Dakota courts’ in rem jurisdiction or prejudiced equitable considerations in the developers’ North Dakota lawsuit. The court also concluded that the issue of comity did not apply because GPI’s SLAPP and defamation claims were not pending before the North Dakota court.

Energy Transfer LP, Energy Transfer Operating, L.P., and Dakota Access LLC (together, Energy Transfer) filed an emergency motion for anti-suit injunction in North Dakota District Court asking the court to enjoin Greenpeace International (GPI) from proceeding with a lawsuit in the Netherlands in which GPI seeks an order declaring Energy Transfer’s North Dakota suit against GPI meritless and requiring Energy Transfer to pay damages. In March 2025, a jury in the North Dakota suit found GPI and other Greenpeace entities liable to Energy Transfer for $667 million in connection with protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. In the emergency motion, Energy Transfer argued that the threshold requirements for an anti-suit injunction were met because the parties and issues were functionally identical. Energy Transfer further argued that discretionary factors weighed in favor of an injunction. Energy Transfer contended that the Dutch action frustrated State of North Dakota policy interests, that the Dutch action was “vexatious,” and that it would result in unnecessary expense and duplicative efforts and was filed for the express purpose of gaining an inconsistent ruling and an improper “race to judgment.” Energy Transfer also contended that an injunction would not have an adverse impact on international comity. The North Dakota Monitor <a href="https://northdakotamonitor.com/2025/08/06/greenpeace-says-north-dakota-judge-shouldnt-meddle-with-international-free-speech-case/">reported</a> that the North Dakota court would hear arguments on the motion on August 20.

After a 12-day trial, a North Dakota jury found that Greenpeace Inc., Greenpeace International, and Greenpeace Fund, Inc. (together, Greenpeace) were liable for almost $667 million in compensatory and exemplary damages to Energy Transfer LP and Energy Transfer Operating, L.P (Energy Transfer) and Dakota Access, L.L.C. (Dakota Access) for actions related to the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) protests. Energy Transfer planned, designed, and constructed DAPL, which is owned and operated by Dakota Access. North Dakota Monitor <a href="https://northdakotamonitor.com/2025/03/19/jury-finds-greenpeace-at-fault-for-protest-damages-awards-pipeline-developer-hundreds-of-millions/">published</a> the jury verdict form. The jury found that Greenpeace Inc. was liable to both Energy Transfer and Dakota Access for trespass, aiding and abetting trespass, trespass to chattel, aiding and abetting trespass to chattel, conversion, aiding and abetting conversion, nuisance, and aiding and abetting nuisance. Both Greenpeace Inc. and Greenpeace International were found liable for conspiracy, and all three defendants were found liable for defamation, defamation per se, and tortious interference with business. Greenpeace <a href="https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/verdict/">said</a> it would appeal the verdict to the North Dakota Supreme Court and noted that it is pursuing an action against Energy Transfer in the Netherlands under the European Union’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) directive.

Court granted amendment of the complaint to withdraw "all defamation allegations related to the Dakota Access Pipeline's poisoning of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's water supply and related to the Dakota Access Pipeline's catastrophic alteration of the climate, as agreed upon by both Energy Transfer and Greenpeace." The court also allowed amendment to clarify the claim for legal fees and to add a claim for exemplary damages, but denied amendment to assert an alter ego claim.

The parties agreed to the dismissal of an individual defendant (a Greenpeace organizer) and the withdrawal of allegations that Law 360 <a href="https://www.law360.com/articles/1475519/dapl-owner-narrows-allegations-in-greenpeace-suit">reported</a> were related to pipeline projects in Pennsylvania and Louisiana and to claims that Greenpeace made false statements about the Dakota Access Pipeline project.

The developers of the Dakota Access Pipeline filed a lawsuit in North Dakota state court against Greenpeace, Red Warrior Society (which the developers said operated as a “front organization” for Greenpeace “to provide cover for Greenpeace USA’s support of and engagement in illegal, violent ‘direct action’” against DAPL and its developers), and three individuals. The lawsuit was filed a week after a federal court in North Dakota dismissed claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act against the same defendants (except for Red Warrior Society, which was not a party to the earlier action). The new lawsuit asserted some claims that were the same as or similar to claims the federal court dismissed without prejudice (trespass, defamation, tortious interference, and civil conspiracy), as well as new claims for aiding and abetting trespass, conversion, and aiding and abetting conversion. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants “advanced their extremist agenda” through illegal and violent means and that they “also engaged in large-scale, intentional dissemination of misinformation and outright falsehoods,” including about DAPL’s impacts on climate change. The plaintiffs seek actual, consequential, special, and restitution damages.