A North Dakota jury has found Greenpeace liable for defamation, ordering it to pay more than $660m (£507m) in damages to an oil company for the environmental group’s role in one of the largest anti-fossil fuel protests in US history.
Texas-based Energy Transfer also accused Greenpeace of trespass, nuisance and civil conspiracy over the demonstrations nearly a decade ago against the Dakota Access Pipeline.
The lawsuit, filed in state court, argued that Greenpeace was behind an “unlawful and violent scheme to cause financial harm to Energy Transfer”.
Greenpeace, which vowed to appeal, said last month it could be forced into bankruptcy because of the case, ending over 50 years of activism.
Protests against the pipeline near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation drew thousands, but Greenpeace argued it did not lead the demonstration and that the lawsuit threatened free speech. Instead, it said the protests were led by local indigenous leaders who were opposed to the pipeline.
The nine-person jury reached a verdict on Wednesday after about two days of deliberating.
The case was heard at a court in Mandan, about 100 miles (160km) north of where the protests took place.
Trey Cox, a lawyer for Energy Transfer, said during closing arguments that Greenpeace’s actions caused between $265m to $340m in damages. He asked the jury to award the company that amount, plus additional damages.
Construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline gained international attention during President Donald Trump’s first term, as Native American groups set up an encampment trying to block it from passing near Standing Rock.
The protests, which saw acts of violence and vandalism, started in April 2016 and ended in February 2017, when the National Guard and police cleared away the demonstrators.
At the peak, over 10,000 protesters were on site. The group included more than 200 Native American tribes, hundreds of US military veterans, actors and political leaders – including current US Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy, Jr.
The 1,172-mile pipeline has been operating since 2017. However, it still lacks a key permit to operate under Lake Oahe in South Dakota, and local tribes have pushed for an extensive environmental review of the project.
During the three-week trial, jurors heard from Energy Transfer’s co-founder and board chairman Kelcy Warren, who said in a video deposition that protesters had created “a total false narrative” about his company.
“It was time to fight back,” he said.
Energy Transfer’s lawyer Mr Cox told the court that Greenpeace had exploited the Dakota Access Pipeline to “promote its own selfish agenda”.
Attorneys for Greenpeace argued that the group did not lead the protests, but merely helped support “nonviolent, direct-action training”.
In response to the verdict, Greenpeace International’s general counsel Kristin Casper said “Energy Transfer hasn’t heard the last of us in this fight”.
“We will not back down, we will not be silenced,” she said.
Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia, said he believes “the verdict’s magnitude will have a chilling effect on environmental and other public interest litigation”.
“It may encourage litigants in other states to file similar lawsuits,” he told the BBC.
Energy Transfer’s legal action named Greenpeace USA, as well as its Washington DC-based funding arm Greenpeace Fund Inc and its Amsterdam-based parent group Greenpeace International.
Greenpeace has counter-sued Energy Transfer in Dutch court, claiming the oil firm is attempting to unfairly use the legal system to silence critics.
The lawsuit, filed earlier this month, seeks to recover all damages and costs.
