Dutch Court Allows Greenpeace to Challenge U.S. Pipeline Verdict
A Dutch court ruled Tuesday that Greenpeace can pursue an anti-SLAPP lawsuit against Energy Transfer in the Netherlands, challenging an American jury's $345 million verdict over Dakota Access Pipeline protests.
A Dutch court on Tuesday opened the door for Greenpeace International to challenge an American jury's $345 million verdict against the environmental group, escalating a legal fight that began with protests along the Dakota Access Pipeline. The ruling in Amsterdam raises questions about whether foreign courts can be used to undermine American legal decisions and shield activists who disrupted domestic energy projects.
The Amsterdam District Court ruled June 3 that Greenpeace's anti-SLAPP lawsuit against Energy Transfer, the Dakota Access Pipeline developer, can proceed in the Netherlands. The court rejected Energy Transfer's request for dismissal and established jurisdiction under Dutch law, despite the North Dakota Supreme Court's May 7 injunction limiting aspects of the foreign proceedings. Greenpeace now seeks to declare the American lawsuit "abusive" and recover costs under the European Union's anti-SLAPP directive.
North Dakota jurors found Greenpeace liable for defamation, trespass, civil conspiracy, and other claims tied to 2016-2017 protests that delayed the pipeline's completion. The jury heard evidence that Greenpeace's actions cost Energy Transfer between $265 million and $340 million in damages. The jurors awarded more than $660 million, though Judge James Gion reduced the judgment to $345 million last October.
Greenpeace is using the EU's anti-SLAPP framework to label the American lawsuit abusive, attempting to shift the legal battlefield from U.S. soil to the Netherlands. The environmental organization says it cannot justify paying the judgment, with Greenpeace USA reporting approximately $40 million in annual revenue. Daniel Simons, senior legal counsel for Greenpeace International, argues that "Energy Transfer continues attempting to evade accountability because it knows it cannot justify its repeated abusive lawsuits."
The Dutch case follows a pattern of activist litigation against energy companies in Europe. Greenpeace France defeated TotalEnergies' SLAPP lawsuit in March 2024, and Greenpeace UK along with Greenpeace International forced Shell to back down from its legal action in December 2024. The organization now applies the same strategy against an American energy company.
The litigation represents a direct threat to American energy infrastructure and independence. The Dakota Access Pipeline delivers crude oil from North Dakota to Illinois, spanning nearly 1,200 miles at a cost of $3.8 billion. Greenpeace's protests delayed completion by five months, according to Energy Transfer. Mads Christensen, executive director of Greenpeace International, frames the conflict differently, stating that Energy Transfer engages in "blatant attempts to silence free speech, erase Indigenous leadership of the Standing Rock movement, and punish solidarity with the ongoing, peaceful resistance."
American legal advocates emphasize that U.S. courts and juries should not face collateral attacks in foreign forums. "North Dakota's courts, laws, and juries cannot be collaterally attacked in a foreign forum," said Trey Cox, lead counsel for Energy Transfer. The North Dakota Supreme Court agreed, ruling 4-1 to issue a narrowly tailored anti-suit injunction against Greenpeace's Dutch proceedings.
The broader implications are clear. If European courts can invalidate American jury verdicts, activist groups gain a powerful tool to disrupt domestic energy projects with impunity. The Amsterdam court's decision creates precedent for foreign tribunals to review American legal outcomes, potentially undermining the rule of law and economic growth at home. Energy Transfer must file its defense within six weeks, with no hearing date yet set.