Greenpeace International is engaging in a legal battle with Energy Transfer, an American pipeline company. The conflict arises from Greenpeace’s claim that the company used a lawsuit in North Dakota to suppress opposition through intimidation. This matter has gained attention under Dutch law.

In a recent development, a Dutch court allowed Greenpeace International to proceed with a countersuit against Energy Transfer. The environmental organization, headquartered in Amsterdam, is utilizing Dutch legal provisions to argue its case.

Energy Transfer initially targeted Greenpeace, alongside two other Greenpeace entities based in the United States, with a lawsuit in federal court. The accusation centered on racketeering related to the Dakota Access Pipeline protests. This federal suit was dismissed, but Energy Transfer pursued the case in North Dakota state court, ultimately winning a verdict amounting to $345 million after a three-week trial.

Greenpeace International was specifically held liable for $64 million. This judgment was based on conspiracy, defamation, and tortious interference claims. Greenpeace International contends that its involvement was limited to signing a letter to financiers. Meanwhile, the two other Greenpeace groups involved acknowledged supporting peaceful protests, leading to them being held liable for a larger portion of the claims.

Before the trial in North Dakota, Greenpeace International announced its intention to countersue in the Netherlands. This action is based on Dutch laws that guard against SLAPP cases. These lawsuits aim to protect media and activists from being silenced through expensive legal challenges. While several American states have laws to restrict SLAPP cases, North Dakota does not.