Around the world, a growing number of large corporations are using litigation to deter public criticism. These legal actions, known as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs), are increasingly being used to drain advocacy groups and activists of time, resources, and credibility.
There is a growing gap between corporate actions and consumer expectations, with 75% of consumers preferring companies with a reputation for sustainable and ethical practices. SLAPPs offer companies short-term control over a narrative, but they can backfire as they erode public trust and signal to investors and consumers that they are unwilling to engage transparently with criticism.
In March, this legal strategy took center stage in North Dakota, where a county jury of 9 found Greenpeace liable for defamation over its opposition to the Dakota Access Pipeline. In a $660 million case brought by the oil company Energy Transfer, both Energy Transfer and Greenpeace invoked the First Amendment, raising pressing questions about the limits of free speech in the context of environmental protest.
At the center of the case is a fundamental dispute over how far advocacy can go before it becomes unlawful interference in a company’s operations, and whether Greenpeace crossed that line during the protests at Standing Rock.
Energy Transfer insists that Greenpeace was responsible for all violence and property damage that occurred during protests, accusing the organization of orchestrating a misinformation campaign that damaged the company’s reputation and disrupted construction of the pipeline.
Greenpeace argues that its advocacy has always been nonviolent, focused on protecting the rights of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe to clean water and tribal land.
The Tribe’s Chairwoman released a statement that Energy Transfer’s narrative of Greenpeace manipulating Standing Rock into protesting against the company is “patronizing and disrespectful to our people.”
SLAPPs: What it means
To understand the broader legal implications of this case, both in U.S. law and in the realm of international environmental advocacy, it’s necessary to understand what Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) are.
These lawsuits, commonly brought by large corporations, are intended to silence criticism by exhausting the resources of those who speak out, usually nonprofits, community organizers, or journalists. SLAPPs are less about winning in court and more about deterring public dissent by making it financially impossible to continue.
Anti-SLAPP Statutes: Not Given a Fair Fight in North Dakota
Many U.S. states have passed anti-SLAPP statutes that make it easier for defendants to get these cases dismissed before they rack up massive legal fees. North Dakota is not one of these states, and in this case, the $660 million claim was left to a jury of nine county residents.
Steve Donziger—the American attorney known for winning a multibillion-dollar judgment against Chevron for oil pollution in Ecuador—was one of the few individuals monitoring the trial in North Dakota. Donziger has raised serious concerns about the fairness of the process, including the fact that 75% of the county’s residents voted for Donald Trump, some jurors had ties to the fossil fuel industry, and most strikingly, the trial itself was kept largely out of public view.
While most North Dakota trials are live streamed, this one was shut off at the company’s request. There was no court reporter, and no public transcript or recording exists.
International Implications: This Is Not a Case About One Pipeline
Legal strategies used to suppress environmental advocacy in one country can have ripple effects far beyond national borders.
A 2023 report by the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE) found a steady rise in SLAPP lawsuits across Europe over the past decade, showing this is not just an issue in the U.S., but part of a global trend in how corporations respond to criticism, particularly in the context of environmental and human rights campaigns.
In this trial, Greenpeace is not just a nonprofit defendant: it is standing in for the rights of Indigenous communities, the climate movement, and the fundamental right to free speech.
Greenpeace Inc. still has the right to appeal, and they will. The due process violations alone suggest that an appeal could have traction, but Greenpeace International is taking a different approach by pursuing an action against Energy Transfer in the Netherlands under the European Union’s newly adopted anti-SLAPP directive. This case will be the first-ever use of the EU’s anti-SLAPP law and the result will set an international precedent.
Meanwhile, the case in North Dakota has significant implications for sustainable business. For companies that are serious about ESG principles, especially those that claim to value stakeholder engagement, Indigenous rights, or climate action, the outcome of this trial should be deeply concerning.
If lawsuits like this become a template for silencing environmental advocacy, it will discourage the very transparency and accountability that ESG frameworks depend on. In effect, it creates a chilling effect not just for nonprofits but also for socially responsible businesses that rely on open civic dialogue to uphold their values.
Related Articles: How Trump’s Executive Actions Undermine the American Legal System | On Freedom: How to Protect Democratic Values in a Second Trump Regime | We Need a Century of Citizen Action to Build a Peaceful and Sustainable World | Shell Sues Greenpeace Over North Sea Protest
Energy Transfer v. Greenpeace is not just about one protest, or one pipeline, or a single nonprofit. It’s about the limits of corporate power and the ability of people and organizations to speak out against it.
If Greenpeace can be targeted and nearly bankrupted for its support of an Indigenous-led protest movement, then any organization that questions the status quo could be next.
It’s a case that crosses political lines and geographic borders, and it sits at the top of a growing list of SLAPP cases that threaten to redefine what public participation means in the age of the climate crisis and corporate consolidation.
A first hearing in Greenpeace International’s counter-suit against Energy Transfer will take place in early July. The trial will be the critical first test of the new EU Anti-SLAPP Directive and the result will set a powerful precedent, one that may push back against abusive lawsuits and provide justice in cases designed to intimidate and silence.
Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed here by Impakter.com columnists are their own, not those of Impakter.com — Cover Photo Credit: Bob Milliar
