A court in the US state of North Dakota on Friday ordered Greenpeace to pay $345 million in damages for protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline. The lawsuit stemmed from a complaint filed by the pipeline’s operator, Energy Transfer, regarding actions taken in 2016 and 2017 around the more than 1,700-kilometer-long pipeline, which runs through Sioux tribal lands. The court cited trespassing and harassment as key grounds for the complaint. Energy Transfer described the actions as a “violent and defamatory campaign.” The crucial risk factor lies in the sheer size of the sum, as it threatens the very existence of Greenpeace USA. The immediate consequence: Greenpeace promptly announced its intention to appeal, because if the amount stands, the organization faces bankruptcy. (t-online: 01.03.26)
Record Award Remains Despite Significant Reduction
The verdict is lower than an earlier ruling, but it still represents a significant financial blow. Nearly a year ago, a jury in the same case awarded $600 million, while the court now awarded $345 million. Greenpeace nevertheless called it a “setback” because the reduction does not address the underlying issues. Greenpeace International’s Chief Legal Officer, Kristin Casper, stated: “This legal battle is far from over.”
Pipeline Conflict: Tribal Territories, Groundwater, Climate Impact
The case concerns protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline in 2016 and 2017, which escalated along the pipeline route and at key points. The pipeline runs through Sioux tribe territories, which is why the protests also formed a conflict between the infrastructure project and Indigenous rights. The tribes and Greenpeace fear groundwater contamination in the event of a leak, while simultaneously criticizing the greenhouse gases emitted from the extracted oil.
Energy Transfer therefore sued Greenpeace, holding the organization responsible for damages in the vicinity of the protests. The company claimed that Greenpeace not only accompanied the protests but also deliberately instigated them. Attorney Trey Cox said that Greenpeace had “exploited” the Standing Rock Sioux tribe to advance an anti-fossil fuel agenda.
Intimidation lawsuit or liability: The legal core
The verdict was based, among other things, on charges of trespassing and harassment, which is why the court does not consider the protests to be solely a political action. Greenpeace, however, views the trial as an intimidation lawsuit. The organization assumes that the high demands are intended to deter protesters while simultaneously criminalizing protest and support efforts.
Greenpeace has also made this argument publicly, but with a view to the broader symbolic significance of the case. As early as March 2025, Greenpeace Germany stated that the aim was to “suppress freedom of expression.” In doing so, Greenpeace links the case to the question of whether corporations can financially cripple critical campaigns through damage claims.
A Matter of Survival – $345 Million vs. $24 Million in Assets
For Greenpeace USA, the verdict is more than just an expensive legal battle; it’s a matter of survival. The organization reported assets of $24 million for 2024, while the court is demanding $345 million. This isn’t a tight budget, but a financial wall, as the sum far exceeds the reported assets. Even if Greenpeace USA mobilizes all its reserves, a gap will remain that the organization cannot close without massive external support.
This is precisely why bankruptcy looms, with the appeal process becoming its last resort. The German branch isn’t directly affected because a separate Greenpeace organization is being sued in the US, but the explosive nature of the decision impacts the entire network. If Energy Transfer actually enforces the demand, insolvency, the dismantling of structures, and the abrupt end of projects are all imminent, simply because the money is lacking.