Record €293M Judgment Against Greenpeace Tests EU's New Anti-SLAPP Protections

The Greenpeace International network faces existential threat after a North Dakota district court finalized a $345M judgment in favor of Energy Transfer, the Texas-based oil and gas pipeline operator. The March 2025 jury verdict—equivalent to roughly €293M—stems from protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline nearly a decade ago and could force the environmental organization into insolvency. With combined network assets of approximately €20-23M across its various entities, the group has announced it will appeal while simultaneously pursuing legal action in the Netherlands to nullify what it calls an "abusive lawsuit designed to silence dissent."

Why This Matters

• Legal precedent: The ruling represents the largest damage award ever enforced against an environmental NGO in a civil case, setting a dangerous benchmark for corporate retaliation against activist groups operating globally—including those with ties to Portugal.

• EU anti-SLAPP test: Greenpeace's counterclaim in Amsterdam, filed in February 2025 and officially registered July 2, 2025, marks the first real-world application of the EU Directive 2024/1069 on protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings, which Portugal must transpose into national law by May 7, 2026.

• Chilling effect: Legal scholars warn the judgment will deter grassroots movements and civil society organizations across Europe from engaging in climate advocacy, even when lawful and peaceful.

• Transatlantic implications: The case exposes how U.S. court judgments can weaponize financial penalties against international entities headquartered in EU member states, raising questions about enforcement and jurisdiction.

What This Means for Portugal Residents and Civil Society

For Portugal-based activists, NGOs, and donors, the Greenpeace case is a wake-up call about the vulnerability of transnational advocacy networks. Greenpeace operates campaigns in Portugal focused on ocean conservation, renewable energy transition, and corporate accountability. If the organization collapses under the weight of the judgment, local initiatives—including partnerships with Portuguese universities, municipalities, and environmental coalitions—would lose a critical ally and funding stream.

The case also has direct legal ramifications for Portugal. Under the new EU Directive 2024/1069, which Portugal's Parliament must implement by May 7, 2026, Portuguese courts will gain new tools to dismiss abusive litigation early and impose costs on plaintiffs who weaponize the legal system to silence critics. The directive specifically protects journalists, activists, and NGOs engaged in matters of public interest—precisely the activity Energy Transfer sought to punish.

Portugal's Ministry of Justice has already designated the Commission for Journalists' Professional Cards (Comissão de Carteira Profissional de Jornalista) as the national focal point for collecting data on SLAPP cases and providing legal and financial support to targets. Portuguese residents and civil society organizations can contact this commission for guidance if facing potentially abusive litigation. Legal experts interviewed by Portuguese media suggest that if a similar lawsuit were filed in Lisbon or Porto today, courts would likely invoke the new framework to block it before trial, provided the defendant could demonstrate the action was designed to intimidate rather than seek legitimate redress. Portuguese NGOs working on environmental, health, or public accountability issues should familiarize themselves with the directive's protections and available legal resources through their regional bar associations and civil society networks.

The Pipeline Protest That Triggered a Record Judgment

The conflict dates to 2016, when the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and allied environmental groups—including Greenpeace—mobilized thousands of demonstrators to block construction of a segment of the Dakota Access Pipeline near the Missouri River in North Dakota. Indigenous leaders argued the route threatened sacred burial sites and jeopardized the tribe's sole source of drinking water. Greenpeace provided logistical support, media coordination, and legal observers but denies organizing or directing the protests themselves.

Energy Transfer responded by filing two successive lawsuits. The first, lodged in federal court in 2019, was dismissed. The company then refiled in North Dakota state court, accusing Greenpeace Inc., Greenpeace Fund Inc., and Greenpeace International of defamation, trespass, racketeering conspiracy, and tortious interference with business. The March 2025 jury verdict initially awarded the company $667M, but the presiding judge cut the figure nearly in half after determining that certain damages had been double-counted.

During the trial, Energy Transfer's lead attorney Trey Cox told the court the company sought not only compensation but a punitive sum large enough "to deter Greenpeace and similar organizations from acting in the same manner in the future," according to the North Dakota Monitor. That language—explicitly targeting future activism—forms the core of Greenpeace's appeal and its argument that the lawsuit constitutes a classic SLAPP.

Financial Reality: Can Greenpeace Survive?

Greenpeace USA reported holding $1.4M in cash and $23M in total assets at the end of 2024, while the broader Greenpeace International network maintains approximately €20M in combined assets across its regional entities. Even when pooling resources across all operational entities, the network's liquidity falls astronomically short of the $345M judgment. In a financial disclosure filed with the court, the organization stated plainly that it "does not possess the funds to pay the fine or to continue normal operations if the sentence is executed."

Michael Gerrard, a Columbia Law School professor specializing in climate litigation, described the ruling as "devastating not only for Greenpeace but for the global environmental movement." He noted that the precedent could embolden fossil fuel companies worldwide to pursue similar strategies, leveraging vast legal budgets to exhaust and bankrupt advocacy groups.

The judgment is enforceable across U.S. jurisdictions and, in theory, against Greenpeace assets in countries that recognize American court orders. However, European Union member states—including Portugal—are under no obligation to enforce judgments they deem incompatible with fundamental rights, particularly freedom of expression and association. Legal analysts suggest that if Energy Transfer seeks to seize Greenpeace assets in Amsterdam, Lisbon, or Brussels, courts may invoke EU Charter of Fundamental Rights Article 11 to block enforcement.

Greenpeace Fights Back in Amsterdam

Rather than accept defeat, Greenpeace International filed a counterclaim in the Amsterdam District Court on February 11, 2025, officially registered July 2, 2025. The case invokes the EU Directive 2024/1069 to demand that the North Dakota judgment be declared unenforceable in Europe and seeks damages for reputational harm, legal costs, and operational disruption.

The next hearing is scheduled for April 16, 2026—approximately six weeks away. If successful, the case would mark the first time the directive has been used to nullify a foreign judgment and could establish a firewall protecting European civil society organizations from extraterritorial legal attacks. The directive allows courts to dismiss abusive cases early, shift legal costs to plaintiffs, and permit third-party NGOs to intervene in support of defendants.

Kristin Casper, senior legal counsel for Greenpeace International, said in a statement: "This legal battle is far from over. We will seek a new trial in North Dakota and, if necessary, appeal to the state Supreme Court. Simultaneously, we are leveraging European law to protect our right to speak truth to power and defend the environment."

Broader Implications for Climate Advocacy in Europe

The Greenpeace case is not isolated. Oil and gas companies have filed similar lawsuits against environmental organizations in France, the United Kingdom, Italy, and the Netherlands over the past five years. The Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE) documented 1,049 SLAPP cases across 30 European jurisdictions between 2010 and 2023, though specific Portuguese data remains limited as the country has only recently enacted comprehensive anti-SLAPP protections. The acceleration of such cases has sharpened considerably since 2020.

The Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights have both recognized the threat. In the 2022 case OOO Memo v. Russia, the Strasbourg court used the term "SLAPP" for the first time, acknowledging that abusive litigation poses a structural risk to democracy and press freedom. The murder of Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia in 2017—who faced more than 40 lawsuits at the time of her death—galvanized EU institutions to act.

Portugal, along with Lithuania, Ireland, Malta, and Belgium, is now in the process of implementing national anti-SLAPP frameworks. The Portuguese government designated the Commission for Journalists' Professional Cards as the national focal point responsible for tracking cases and providing legal and financial support to targets. Legal aid funds are expected to be expanded to cover not only journalists but also activists, researchers, and NGO staff engaged in public interest work. Portuguese civil society organizations can begin preparing by documenting their public participation activities and understanding their rights under the new directive framework.

What Happens Next

Both Greenpeace and Energy Transfer are expected to file appeals to the North Dakota Supreme Court in the coming weeks. Greenpeace will argue that the trial violated constitutional protections for free speech and association, while Energy Transfer may seek to restore the original $667M jury award. Legal observers estimate the appeals process could take 18 to 24 months.

In parallel, the Amsterdam case will proceed independently. A ruling in Greenpeace's favor would not reverse the North Dakota judgment but would prevent its enforcement across the European Union's 27 member states, effectively shielding the organization's European operations and assets. Conversely, a loss in Amsterdam could legitimize the U.S. verdict and expose Greenpeace to asset seizures across the continent.

For Portugal, the case serves as a stress test of the new anti-SLAPP regime. If the directive proves effective, it could position the country as a safe harbor for civil society organizations facing legal intimidation—an attractive prospect for NGOs, journalists, and think tanks operating in increasingly hostile regulatory environments elsewhere. If it fails, the precedent could silence advocacy on everything from climate policy to corporate malfeasance, undermining the democratic accountability that underpins the European project itself.

A Precedent That Could Reshape Activism

The final outcome will reverberate far beyond Greenpeace. Environmental lawyers warn that if the judgment stands and is enforced, corporations will adopt it as a playbook: file in jurisdictions with plaintiff-friendly juries, inflate damages through speculative business loss claims, and use the threat of bankruptcy to force advocacy groups into silence or settlement.

Portugal's civil society ecosystem—from ocean conservation groups in the Algarve to climate coalitions in Lisbon—relies heavily on partnerships with international NGOs like Greenpeace. The loss of such networks would leave local movements under-resourced and vulnerable, particularly as the country accelerates its green transition and faces growing pressure from energy and agribusiness lobbies.

Whether the EU's anti-SLAPP framework can counterbalance this threat remains the central question. The answer will be written in courtrooms in Bismarck and Amsterdam over the next two years—and will determine whether the right to protest survives the age of corporate legal warfare.