reply

Greenpeace International v. Energy Transfer - reply

Litigation

Sabin

Sabin Litigation

complaint

Greenpeace International v. Energy Transfer - complaint

summons

Greenpeace International v. Energy Transfer - summons

Filing Year For Action

In November 2016, Greenpeace International (GPI) signed an open letter with over 500 organizations, calling on funders to withdraw financing for an oil pipeline in North Dakota. Energy Transfer—the developer of the pipeline—and related entities cited this signature as evidence to bring GPI before U.S. courts, seeking at least $300 million in damages. A <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/energy-transfer-equity-lp-v-greenpeace-international/">federal lawsuit</a> was principally based on the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Energy Transfer also named Greenpeace Fund, Inc. and Greenpeace, Inc. as defendants, as well as two other organizations and individual activists. In February 2019, the court dismissed the RICO claims against the Greenpeace entities with prejudice and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. Later that month, Energy Transfer filed a <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/energy-transfer-lp-v-greenpeace-international/">lawsuit</a> in North Dakota state court against Greenpeace International, Greenpeace Fund, Inc., and Greenpeace, Inc. (Three individuals and a group that Energy Transfer alleged was a “front organization” for Greenpeace Fund, Inc. and Greenpeace, Inc. were also originally defendants in the state court case.) In March 2025, a jury in the North Dakota state court found that Greenpeace Inc., Greenpeace International, and Greenpeace Fund, Inc. were liable for almost $667 million in compensatory and exemplary damages to Energy Transfer entities based on state law claims, including trespass, trespass to chattel, conversion, nuisance, defamation, tortious interference with business, and conspiracy. The Greenpeace entities indicated they will appeal if the trial court does not reverse the jury’s verdict.

On July 23, 2024, GPI sent a notice of liability to Energy Transfer (ET) under the European Union’s Anti-SLAPP Directive, stating that GPI holds ET liable for the costs of legal representation and trial expenses incurred as a result of ET’s actions. “SLAPP” stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. The EU’s Anti-SLAPP directive was passed on April 11, 2024. On September 6, 2024, ET responded by rejecting liability and insisting its legal action was not a SLAPP suit.

In February 2025, GPI filed a case with the Public Prosecutor of the District Court of Amsterdam, citing violations of the anti-SLAPP Directives under Dutch law. GPI cited Article 6:162 (1) and (2) under the Dutch civil law, which prohibits tortious and improper social conduct. They also cited Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which entitles NGOs to the right to freedom of expression and the right to impart information. Finally, GPI cited the European Union Anti-SLAPP Directive, which GPI said was intended to shield “public watchdogs” from SLAPP suits both within and outside of the EU.

Energy Transfer insists that the lawsuits against GPI are not SLAPPs but a legitimate exercise of the company’s rights under North Dakota State Law. They maintain that there is no legal basis to establish legal liability under European or Dutch law.

Greenpeace International v. Energy Transfer