MANDAN, N.D. — (AP) — A North Dakota jury on Wednesday found Greenpeace liable for defamation and other claims brought by a company in connection with protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline.
The nine-person jury awarded Dallas-based Energy Transfer and its subsidiary Dakota Access hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.
The case accused Netherlands-based Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA and funding arm Greenpeace Fund Inc. of defamation, trespass, nuisance, civil conspiracy and other acts.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. AP’s earlier story follows below.
MANDAN, N.D. (AP) — A North Dakota jury reached a verdict on Monday in the trial of a pipeline company's lawsuit accusing the environmental advocacy group Greenpeace of defamation and disrupting the Dakota Access Pipeline project, according to a Greenpeace spokesperson.
Nine jurors deliberated the case brought by Dallas-based Energy Transfer and its subsidiary Dakota Access against Netherlands-based Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA, and funding arm Greenpeace Fund Inc., after a three-week trial.
The company alleged defamation, trespass, nuisance, civil conspiracy and other claims against the Greenpeace defendants, and sought hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. The jury was to decide what damages, if any, to award.
The case reaches back to protests in 2016 and 2017 against the Dakota Access oil pipeline and its Missouri River crossing upstream of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's reservation. For years the tribe has opposed the line as a risk to its water supply. The multistate pipeline has been transporting oil since mid-2017.
Plaintiffs’ attorney Trey Cox has said Greenpeace carried out a scheme to stop the pipeline’s construction. During opening statements, he alleged Greenpeace paid outsiders to come into the area and protest, sent blockade supplies, organized or led protester trainings, and made untrue statements about the project to stop it.
Attorneys for the Greenpeace entities said there is no evidence to the claims, that Greenpeace employees had little or no involvement in the protests and the organizations had nothing to do with Energy Transfer’s delays in construction or refinancing.
Greenpeace representatives have said the lawsuit is a critical test of First Amendment free speech and protest rights and could threaten the organization’s future. A spokesperson for Energy Transfer previously said the lawsuit is about Greenpeace not following the law, not free speech.
Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
Sign Up
