Greenpeace Takes Legal Action Against Energy Transfer Over SLAPP Lawsuits in the Netherlands.

Greenpeace International has initiated legal action against US pipeline operator Energy Transfer in a Dutch court, accusing the fossil fuel company of using baseless legal tactics to financially harm and intimidate the global environmental organization. This latest lawsuit is part of Greenpeace’s broader effort to challenge Energy Transfer’s ongoing legal strategy and to test new EU regulations designed to protect freedom of expression.

Filed in the District Court of Amsterdam on Tuesday, this lawsuit represents the latest chapter in an ongoing legal battle between Greenpeace and Energy Transfer, a company co-founded by Kelcy Warren, a prominent supporter of former US president Donald Trump. Greenpeace seeks to recover hundreds of millions of dollars in expenses and potential damages resulting from Energy Transfer's lawsuits against the organization, which stem from protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline in 2016.

Daniel Simons, senior legal counsel at Greenpeace, explained that the purpose of this lawsuit is to fight back against the “corporate bullying” tactic that has been used by Energy Transfer over the years. "If successful, this will send a message to corporate bullies that the age of impunity is ending," said Simons. Greenpeace is hopeful that a victory in the Netherlands could help protect its operations in the US from financial ruin due to Energy Transfer’s ongoing lawsuits.

In 2017, Energy Transfer filed a lawsuit in North Dakota, claiming that Greenpeace and its affiliates had spread misleading information about the Dakota Access Pipeline, potentially damaging relationships with financial institutions and inciting protests that led to property damage. Although the pipeline was eventually completed, Kelcy Warren expressed frustration at the time, stating, “What they did to us is wrong, and they’re going to pay for it.”

Greenpeace’s legal team is particularly concerned about an upcoming trial in North Dakota, where the environmental group is facing a civil lawsuit that could hold it responsible for over $300 million in damages related to its 2016 protests. The organization believes that these actions are part of a broader SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) campaign designed to silence activists and critics through expensive, drawn-out legal battles.

The legal action in the Netherlands is seen as a strategy to shield Greenpeace from the potential financial devastation of the North Dakota lawsuit and to protect its EU assets. Greenpeace aims to establish a legal precedent based on a new EU directive that aims to combat SLAPP lawsuits and prevent their use to silence civil society organizations.

Greenpeace’s counter-lawsuit claims that Energy Transfer's legal actions in the US represent classic examples of harmful SLAPP lawsuits, which violate Greenpeace’s rights to freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights. The organization also believes that the new EU anti-SLAPP regulations provide a crucial legal framework to fight back against these types of lawsuits.

In a statement, Simons emphasized the significance of this case, saying, “This lawsuit, if successful, would not only protect Greenpeace but could also provide a roadmap for others fighting against SLAPPs globally.”

Greenpeace has been involved in several high-profile lawsuits and legal battles against energy companies, often relating to its environmental activism and protests against fossil fuel projects. Some of the notable past cases include:

1. Shell (2015) – Greenpeace launched a global campaign against Shell’s Arctic drilling program, leading to several legal confrontations. In 2015, Greenpeace activists protested Shell's oil rigs, and the company filed lawsuits against Greenpeace for allegedly obstructing their operations. In retaliation, Greenpeace continued its legal battle, citing its right to protest. In some cases, the court ruled in favor of Greenpeace's right to free expression and protest.

2. ExxonMobil (2000s) – Greenpeace has been involved in multiple legal disputes with ExxonMobil over the company's environmental record. One of the prominent cases was in the early 2000s, where Greenpeace activists carried out direct actions against ExxonMobil’s involvement in the fossil fuel industry. The company sought legal action against Greenpeace, arguing the protests were unlawful. Despite this, Greenpeace has continued to target ExxonMobil's role in climate change.

3. Total (2012) – Greenpeace took legal action against the French oil company Total in 2012 after they launched a campaign opposing Total’s operations in Canada’s tar sands. Greenpeace accused the company of contributing to environmental damage and human rights violations. In response, Total filed a lawsuit against Greenpeace for defamation. This lawsuit was a significant case in the broader fight for environmental accountability.

4. BP (2009) – Greenpeace has frequently clashed with BP over the oil giant's environmental impact. In 2009, Greenpeace activists staged a protest at BP’s headquarters in London, targeting the company's role in the Deepwater Horizon disaster and other environmental issues. BP attempted to block Greenpeace’s protest through legal measures, but Greenpeace continued its push for accountability regarding BP's environmental practices.

5. Dakota Access Pipeline (2016–Present) – The most significant legal battle between Greenpeace and an energy company involves the ongoing dispute over the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). Greenpeace was an active participant in the protests against the pipeline and was sued by Energy Transfer, the company behind DAPL, for allegedly spreading misinformation and inciting protests. This legal struggle has led to lawsuits and counter-lawsuits, with Greenpeace facing financial threats, including the potential for hundreds of millions in damages.

Kanye West Faces Lawsuit Over Antisemitic Texts and Hitler Comments