SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Indigenous people and environmental advocates demonstrate against the Dakota Access Pipeline in Standing Rock, North Dakota on December 4, 2016.
(Photo: Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images)
Greenpeace Fights Dakota Access Pipeline Suit With EU Anti-SLAPP Law
"Energy Transfer's lawsuit is a perfect prototype of what the E.U. Directive aims to end: wealthy players using towering legal claims and costs to muzzle criticism," said a senior legal counsel for Greenpeace.
Aug 21, 2024
With "the future of advocacy and peaceful protest" on the line, as one leader of Greenpeace USA said, the international environmental group has become the first entity to use a new European Union law aimed at stopping powerful corporations from filing meritless legal challenges.
Greenpeace International is among the defendants in a $300 million lawsuit originally filed in 2017 by Energy Transfer (ET), the Texas-based oil company that has accused Greenpeace of inciting protests against the firm's Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota, and of vandalizing property and delaying the pipeline project.
Greenpeace's home base of Amsterdam allows it to apply the E.U.'s Anti-SLAPP Directive, which was adopted in April with the goal of stopping legal challenges that are deemed to be "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation"—lawsuits that are meant to bankrupt civil society groups and nonprofits with years of litigation and legal fees.
As The New York Times reported Tuesday, Greenpeace International last month sent a Notice of Liability to ET, which is headed by a close ally of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, saying it will use the Anti-SLAPP Directive to counter-sue the company in the Netherlands.
The group said it aims to recover all damages and costs it has suffered as a result of ET's lawsuit unless the company withdraws the case and pays Greenpeace back for the fees it has incurred fighting the litigation so far.
"Energy Transfer's lawsuit is a perfect prototype of what the E.U. Directive aims to end: wealthy players using towering legal claims and costs to muzzle criticism. Thanks to a concerted civil society campaign, there is now a strong tool to stop these cases at the E.U. border and to fight back against them," said Daniel Simons, senior legal counsel for strategic defense for Greenpeace International.
Greenpeace has argued it did not organize protests that included a huge encampment near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation from 2016-17, where Indigenous tribes and environmental advocates protested ET's construction of the 1,170-mile crude oil pipeline. It has said it did not participate in any violence or property destruction at the protests.
"From the outset, this has been an attempt by ET to bury nonprofits and activists in legal fees, push them towards bankruptcy, and ultimately silence dissent," said Greenpeace.
The group's chapter in the United Kingdom spoke out on Wednesday, saying the lawsuit represents an "existential threat" to Greenpeace.
The Standing Rock Sioux tribe and its allies said the pipeline would endanger the water supply for the reservation and violate the tribe's right to its land. The pipeline began operating in 2017 after Trump issued an executive order, but it has yet to receive federal approval.
ET's lawsuit against Greenpeace is scheduled to go before a jury in Morton County, North Dakota next February.
Anna Myers, executive director of the Whistleblowing International Network and member of the steering committee for the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe, said Greenpeace is applying the Anti-SLAPP Directive to confront a growing threat posed by powerful corporations, including fossil fuel firms.
"The Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe was set up in response to build solidarity and advance the case for anti-SLAPP legislation, including the E.U. Anti-SLAPP Directive published in April 2024," said Myers. "Energy Transfer's lawsuit—and the Notice of Liability issued by Greenpeace International—represents a crucial test of this new law."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
With "the future of advocacy and peaceful protest" on the line, as one leader of Greenpeace USA said, the international environmental group has become the first entity to use a new European Union law aimed at stopping powerful corporations from filing meritless legal challenges.
Greenpeace International is among the defendants in a $300 million lawsuit originally filed in 2017 by Energy Transfer (ET), the Texas-based oil company that has accused Greenpeace of inciting protests against the firm's Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota, and of vandalizing property and delaying the pipeline project.
Greenpeace's home base of Amsterdam allows it to apply the E.U.'s Anti-SLAPP Directive, which was adopted in April with the goal of stopping legal challenges that are deemed to be "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation"—lawsuits that are meant to bankrupt civil society groups and nonprofits with years of litigation and legal fees.
As The New York Times reported Tuesday, Greenpeace International last month sent a Notice of Liability to ET, which is headed by a close ally of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, saying it will use the Anti-SLAPP Directive to counter-sue the company in the Netherlands.
The group said it aims to recover all damages and costs it has suffered as a result of ET's lawsuit unless the company withdraws the case and pays Greenpeace back for the fees it has incurred fighting the litigation so far.
"Energy Transfer's lawsuit is a perfect prototype of what the E.U. Directive aims to end: wealthy players using towering legal claims and costs to muzzle criticism. Thanks to a concerted civil society campaign, there is now a strong tool to stop these cases at the E.U. border and to fight back against them," said Daniel Simons, senior legal counsel for strategic defense for Greenpeace International.
Greenpeace has argued it did not organize protests that included a huge encampment near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation from 2016-17, where Indigenous tribes and environmental advocates protested ET's construction of the 1,170-mile crude oil pipeline. It has said it did not participate in any violence or property destruction at the protests.
"From the outset, this has been an attempt by ET to bury nonprofits and activists in legal fees, push them towards bankruptcy, and ultimately silence dissent," said Greenpeace.
The group's chapter in the United Kingdom spoke out on Wednesday, saying the lawsuit represents an "existential threat" to Greenpeace.
The Standing Rock Sioux tribe and its allies said the pipeline would endanger the water supply for the reservation and violate the tribe's right to its land. The pipeline began operating in 2017 after Trump issued an executive order, but it has yet to receive federal approval.
ET's lawsuit against Greenpeace is scheduled to go before a jury in Morton County, North Dakota next February.
Anna Myers, executive director of the Whistleblowing International Network and member of the steering committee for the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe, said Greenpeace is applying the Anti-SLAPP Directive to confront a growing threat posed by powerful corporations, including fossil fuel firms.
"The Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe was set up in response to build solidarity and advance the case for anti-SLAPP legislation, including the E.U. Anti-SLAPP Directive published in April 2024," said Myers. "Energy Transfer's lawsuit—and the Notice of Liability issued by Greenpeace International—represents a crucial test of this new law."
With "the future of advocacy and peaceful protest" on the line, as one leader of Greenpeace USA said, the international environmental group has become the first entity to use a new European Union law aimed at stopping powerful corporations from filing meritless legal challenges.
Greenpeace International is among the defendants in a $300 million lawsuit originally filed in 2017 by Energy Transfer (ET), the Texas-based oil company that has accused Greenpeace of inciting protests against the firm's Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota, and of vandalizing property and delaying the pipeline project.
Greenpeace's home base of Amsterdam allows it to apply the E.U.'s Anti-SLAPP Directive, which was adopted in April with the goal of stopping legal challenges that are deemed to be "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation"—lawsuits that are meant to bankrupt civil society groups and nonprofits with years of litigation and legal fees.
As The New York Times reported Tuesday, Greenpeace International last month sent a Notice of Liability to ET, which is headed by a close ally of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, saying it will use the Anti-SLAPP Directive to counter-sue the company in the Netherlands.
The group said it aims to recover all damages and costs it has suffered as a result of ET's lawsuit unless the company withdraws the case and pays Greenpeace back for the fees it has incurred fighting the litigation so far.
"Energy Transfer's lawsuit is a perfect prototype of what the E.U. Directive aims to end: wealthy players using towering legal claims and costs to muzzle criticism. Thanks to a concerted civil society campaign, there is now a strong tool to stop these cases at the E.U. border and to fight back against them," said Daniel Simons, senior legal counsel for strategic defense for Greenpeace International.
Greenpeace has argued it did not organize protests that included a huge encampment near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation from 2016-17, where Indigenous tribes and environmental advocates protested ET's construction of the 1,170-mile crude oil pipeline. It has said it did not participate in any violence or property destruction at the protests.
"From the outset, this has been an attempt by ET to bury nonprofits and activists in legal fees, push them towards bankruptcy, and ultimately silence dissent," said Greenpeace.
The group's chapter in the United Kingdom spoke out on Wednesday, saying the lawsuit represents an "existential threat" to Greenpeace.
The Standing Rock Sioux tribe and its allies said the pipeline would endanger the water supply for the reservation and violate the tribe's right to its land. The pipeline began operating in 2017 after Trump issued an executive order, but it has yet to receive federal approval.
ET's lawsuit against Greenpeace is scheduled to go before a jury in Morton County, North Dakota next February.
Anna Myers, executive director of the Whistleblowing International Network and member of the steering committee for the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe, said Greenpeace is applying the Anti-SLAPP Directive to confront a growing threat posed by powerful corporations, including fossil fuel firms.
"The Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe was set up in response to build solidarity and advance the case for anti-SLAPP legislation, including the E.U. Anti-SLAPP Directive published in April 2024," said Myers. "Energy Transfer's lawsuit—and the Notice of Liability issued by Greenpeace International—represents a crucial test of this new law."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.