Greenpeace Directed to Compensate Hundreds of Millions in Damages Due to Dakota Pipeline Protests
A jury in North Dakota has determined that the environmental organization is responsible for defamation and other allegations connected to the protests against the Dakota Access pipeline that took place in 2016 and 2017.
A jury in North Dakota has ruled that Greenpeace must pay hundreds of millions of dollars to Energy Transfer, a Dallas-based oil and gas firm, due to protests at the Dakota Access pipeline in 2016 and 2017. The nine-member jury sided with Energy Transfer on most charges, including defamation and inciting criminal activities among protesters.
Energy Transfer had filed a lawsuit against Greenpeace for $300 million, claiming that the organization 'provoked' protests through a 'misinformation campaign.'
Greenpeace countered these allegations, asserting that lawsuits like this aimed to 'undermine the right to peaceful protest.'
The case has drawn significant attention from the broader non-profit sector and First Amendment scholars, raising concerns about its potential effects on activism.
During the trial, Energy Transfer sought to link various wrongdoings or disturbances resulting from the protests to Greenpeace, while the latter maintained that its role was minimal and at the invitation of the Standing Rock tribe.
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe issued a statement asserting that it was in charge of the protests and expressing frustrations over difficulties in obtaining safety information from Energy Transfer.
Kelcy Warren, the billionaire founder of the pipeline company, stated in a video deposition that his company had provided financial incentives to the Standing Rock Sioux tribe to end the protests, which the tribe refused.
Following the verdict, the trial monitoring committee released a statement characterizing the trial as 'deeply flawed' and claiming it denied Greenpeace the opportunity to mount a full defense.
The committee, which monitored every aspect of the trial, concluded that the jury exhibited bias favoring Energy Transfer and that the judge lacked comprehensive legal expertise on the intricate issues involved.
Energy Transfer had filed a lawsuit against Greenpeace for $300 million, claiming that the organization 'provoked' protests through a 'misinformation campaign.'
Greenpeace countered these allegations, asserting that lawsuits like this aimed to 'undermine the right to peaceful protest.'
The case has drawn significant attention from the broader non-profit sector and First Amendment scholars, raising concerns about its potential effects on activism.
During the trial, Energy Transfer sought to link various wrongdoings or disturbances resulting from the protests to Greenpeace, while the latter maintained that its role was minimal and at the invitation of the Standing Rock tribe.
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe issued a statement asserting that it was in charge of the protests and expressing frustrations over difficulties in obtaining safety information from Energy Transfer.
Kelcy Warren, the billionaire founder of the pipeline company, stated in a video deposition that his company had provided financial incentives to the Standing Rock Sioux tribe to end the protests, which the tribe refused.
Following the verdict, the trial monitoring committee released a statement characterizing the trial as 'deeply flawed' and claiming it denied Greenpeace the opportunity to mount a full defense.
The committee, which monitored every aspect of the trial, concluded that the jury exhibited bias favoring Energy Transfer and that the judge lacked comprehensive legal expertise on the intricate issues involved.
