Greenpeace International has brought an anti-SLAPP lawsuit against U.S. pipeline company Energy Transfer in the Netherlands, seeking to recover damages it says stem from what it calls abusive litigation over protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline. The Dutch case follows a North Dakota jury verdict ordering Greenpeace entities to pay more than $660 million in damages to Energy Transfer over their role in the 2016–2017 protests, a sum later reduced by a judge.
Environmental campaigners are increasingly turning to the courts to challenge major energy and petrochemical companies, adding cross-border legal battles to more traditional public campaigns.
In one of the highest-profile examples, Greenpeace International has launched an anti-SLAPP lawsuit against Energy Transfer in the Netherlands. Greenpeace International, which is based in the Netherlands, filed the case in Amsterdam in February 2025 as what it describes as the first test of the European Union’s new anti-SLAPP Directive, according to the group’s legal updates.
The Dutch lawsuit targets Energy Transfer, the Texas-based company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline. Greenpeace International says the case aims to recover damages and costs it has incurred defending against what it calls meritless “SLAPP” lawsuits brought by Energy Transfer in the United States. Energy Transfer has challenged the Dutch court’s jurisdiction, and the case remains pending.
The dispute stems from a North Dakota state court case brought by Energy Transfer over Greenpeace’s alleged role in protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline in 2016 and 2017. In March 2025, a Morton County jury found Greenpeace Inc., Greenpeace Fund Inc. and Greenpeace International liable on claims including defamation, trespass, nuisance, tortious interference and civil conspiracy, and awarded more than $660 million in compensatory and punitive damages to Energy Transfer and its affiliates. Subsequent court filings show a North Dakota judge later reduced the total award to $345 million, ruling some portions of the verdict were duplicative or excessive. Greenpeace has said it will appeal and characterizes the U.S. case as an attempt to silence its advocacy.
Greenpeace and other civil society groups describe Energy Transfer’s lawsuits as textbook examples of strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs, which are designed to burden critics with legal costs and chill speech. Energy Transfer, for its part, has argued in court that Greenpeace’s actions went beyond lawful protest and caused significant financial harm, including project delays and reputational damage.
The turn to litigation is not confined to Greenpeace. In September 2024, California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit in state court against ExxonMobil, accusing the company of deceiving the public for decades about the recyclability of plastics and its role in the plastics pollution crisis. The complaint alleges that ExxonMobil promotes and produces large volumes of polymers used in single-use plastic products that become waste in California and misled consumers by suggesting recycling would address mounting plastic pollution.
ExxonMobil has rejected those allegations and, in a separate federal lawsuit filed in Texas, has accused Bonta and several environmental groups of defamation over their criticism of the company’s advanced recycling initiatives. The company says its technologies can convert plastic waste into raw materials for new products and argues that its efforts are part of the solution to plastic pollution. Figures cited by ExxonMobil regarding the volume of plastic it has processed through such programs appear in company communications and legal filings, but are disputed by environmental advocates who question the scale and environmental benefits of the technology.
These legal battles are unfolding amid persistent public concern over both environmental protection and the affordability and reliability of energy. While polling consistently shows that energy costs and availability rank among voters’ top concerns, surveys differ on exact figures and question wording. At the same time, government data indicate that U.S. emissions of several common air pollutants have fallen substantially since the 1970s under federal clean air laws, even as domestic oil and gas production has grown over the past decade. Compliance with federal drinking water standards has also improved over time, though problems remain in some communities.
Together, the cases involving Energy Transfer, Greenpeace and ExxonMobil underscore a growing reliance on courts to define the boundaries of corporate accountability, government regulation and advocacy in the energy and petrochemical sectors. They also highlight tensions between protecting freedom of expression and ensuring that activism, corporate communications and government enforcement all remain subject to legal scrutiny.
