Greenpeace’s Dutch Anti-SLAPP Case Against Oil Pipeline Giant Advances - Inside Climate News

A lawsuit filed by Greenpeace International against the U.S.-based fossil fuel company Energy Transfer in the Netherlands is moving forward after a Dutch court recently ruled in favor of the environmental organization in rejecting the company’s bid to toss out the case. The suit is connected to the ongoing litigation in the U.S. between Energy Transfer and Greenpeace entities over the 2016-2017 indigenous-led protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline, which resulted in a staggering jury verdict delivered against Greenpeace in North Dakota last year. Now, as Greenpeace fights to contest the verdict while it simultaneously pursues claims against Energy Transfer in the Netherlands, the two parties remain locked in an unusual and bitter legal dispute that is proceeding on parallel tracks on both sides of the Atlantic. A little over a year ago, on March 19, 2025, a North Dakota jury unanimously handed down a crushing damage award amounting to nearly $667 million against three Greenpeace entities—the U.S.-based Greenpeace Inc. and Greenpeace Fund, and the Netherlands-based Greenpeace International—over their alleged role in the Standing Rock protests against the controversial crude oil pipeline. The 1,172-mile-long pipeline was rerouted around Bismarck to cross within a mile of the Standing Rock Sioux reservation and beneath Lake Oahe—the primary drinking water source for the tribe. Following a three-week trial in Morton County, North Dakota, where the uprising took place, the jury sided with pipeline developer Energy Transfer in finding Greenpeace liable for claims including defamation, tortious interference with business, conspiracy, aiding and abetting property damage and trespass. While Energy Transfer alleged that Greenpeace had orchestrated the protest, Greenpeace argued that it played just a minor supporting role and only got involved at the request of the Standing Rock Sioux. The environmental group provided training and supplies including lock box devices that some demonstrators used to chain themselves to construction equipment. The protests involved some acts of civil disobedience, like trespassing and blocking traffic, as well as moments of heightened tension between protestors and law enforcement. Greenpeace and its allies slammed the verdict as an attack on free speech, and Greenpeace vowed to continue to fight back against the case that it characterized as “one of the largest Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) cases ever filed.” In February 2025, just ahead of the start of the North Dakota trial, Greenpeace International sued Energy Transfer in the Netherlands, invoking a newly adopted European Union directive intended to protect EU citizens from abusive lawsuits or SLAPPs that aim to stifle democratic public participation. The case was filed in Amsterdam District Court claiming that Energy Transfer’s lawsuit against Greenpeace International in North Dakota was baseless and designed to silence and punish its opponents. The case also points to an initial federal racketeering lawsuit that Energy Transfer tried to bring against Greenpeace but was dismissed, arguing that the pipeline company has engaged in harassment and defamation that amount to torts under Dutch law. With the filing of the Dutch case along with the ongoing proceedings in North Dakota, two tracks of litigation involving the same parties are playing out in separate countries. This is already raising thorny questions around jurisdiction. And it remains to be seen how the disputes will ultimately get resolved and whether there will be conflicting rulings. “There may be an outright conflict between the two courts in the two cases, or there may not. This is uncharted territory,” Patrick Parenteau, emeritus professor of law at Vermont Law and Graduate School, told Inside Climate News. “Each case is in a very different posture. Some of the issues that have yet to be settled in the U.S. are going to have a direct bearing on what happens in the Netherlands. And which court goes first, or which court gets to a final resolution first, that’s another question.” Dueling Legal Battles Although there has been a trial and a jury verdict in the North Dakota case, Greenpeace insists that the case is not over. In February, when the trial court entered its judgment in favor of Energy Transfer, it cut the initial damage award in half, down to $345 million. That amount, of which Greenpeace International would be liable for about $65 million, is closer to the roughly $300 million Energy Transfer had sought when the case went to trial. But Greenpeace has said that its U.S. entities would face bankruptcy if it is forced to pay such a sum. The Greenpeace defendants are thus continuing to contest the verdict. In March they filed a motion for a new trial. If that is denied, they plan to appeal the verdict to the North Dakota Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Energy Transfer is fighting back against the Dutch lawsuit, claiming it is baseless and that the court lacks jurisdiction over the company. On June 3 the Amsterdam District Court ruled against Energy Transfer’s preliminary request to dismiss the case, rejecting the company’s argument that it lacks jurisdiction. The court also refused to pause the case pending the final outcome of the proceedings in North Dakota, and it denied Energy Transfer’s request to appeal before the case is heard on the merits. The ruling means that the case will proceed on the merits, according to Greenpeace International. The Amsterdam court did side with Energy Transfer on the applicability of the 2024 EU anti-SLAPP directive, finding that it does not apply because the Netherlands has not yet implemented the directive through national legislation. The Dutch government had argued there was no need to do so since there are similar anti-SLAPP remedies under existing Dutch law. “The court disagreed with the Dutch government and said there is an implementing law needed,” Daniel Simons, senior legal counsel for strategic defense at Greenpeace International, explained. “It still allowed our case to move forward, but it does so under the existing Dutch law rather than that together with the EU directive.” In a statement commenting on the Amsterdam District Court’s ruling, Energy Transfer described it as an “important victory” and a “step in the right direction.” This story is funded by readers like you. Our nonprofit newsroom provides award-winning climate coverage free of charge and advertising. We rely on donations from readers like you to keep going. Please donate now to support our work. Donate Now“The court rejected Greenpeace’s central legal argument that the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive supports its claims to essentially undo Energy Transfer’s successful outcome in the North Dakota court last year,” the company said in its statement. “The court agreed with our position that the Directive does not apply. This is a significant legal determination that vindicates Energy Transfer’s consistent stance throughout this litigation. “Energy Transfer maintains that no legitimate basis exists for a European court to assert jurisdiction over an American company with no employees, operations, or assets in the Netherlands, for conduct that occurred entirely on American soil. That jurisdictional reality has not changed, and Energy Transfer will continue to press that position. We remain committed to pursuing all available legal remedies to full resolution.” The company has already tried to get the North Dakota courts to block the case in the Netherlands through requesting what is called an anti-suit injunction. As Parenteau explained in a 2025 working paper, such requests to stop a lawsuit in another country “are rare in the U.S.” In September, the North Dakota district court denied Energy Transfer’s request, finding that the Dutch case raised different issues from the North Dakota case. Greenpeace International alleges defamation from out-of-court statements made by the company and fr