Fifteen years after oil pipeline company Energy Transfer and subsidiary Dakota Access filed a lawsuit regarding protests by Native Americans and Greenpeace, a jury found the Netherlands-based Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA, and their funding arm Greenpeace Fund Inc., liable for defamation and more.

The now teetering organization was found legally responsible on all counts and faces bankruptcy with a payout of more than $660 million in damages ordered by the court. The nine-person jury took three days to decide their verdict.

The damages total about $666.9 million against different Greenpeace entities. Greenpeace USA is ordered to pay almost $404 million, and Greenpeace Fund Inc. plus Greenpeace International must each pay about $131 million in damages.

Legal documents show Energy Transfer and Dakota Access accused Greenpeace of defamation, disruptions, and attacks during protests against the pipeline. The dispute grew from the oil pipeline’s design, which would include pipes crossing the Missouri River, upstream from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe reservation. The Tribe claims the reservation water would be harmed by the pipeline.

After the unanimous verdict was announced, an attorney from Greenpeace said this type of behavior by companies “is never going to stop.”

Speaking to the press in front of the courthouse after the ruling was announced, with numerous members of Greenpeace on hand, their attorney said, “That’s the really important message today, and we’re just walking out and we’re going to get together and figure out what our next steps are.”

The organization said they will appeal the verdict.

“The fight against Big Oil is not over today,” said Greenpeace International General Counsel Kristin Casper. “We know that the law and the truth are on our side.”

The Greenpeace organization will be in court in Amsterdam this summer in July for a claim they filed against Energy Transfer in an anti-intimidation lawsuit. Legal documents in Greenpeace’s anti-intimidation lawsuit against the fossil fuel company Energy Transfer state they are seeking hundreds of millions of dollars.

This particular case is the first of its kind in the EU, where a special law was enacted in the EU to help organizations that are “manifestly” created to “harass civil society,” in 2024.

In the EU legal documents, Greenpeace argues that a form of lawfare known as SLAPP, which stands for “strategic lawsuits against public participation,” is part of the legal problem for their freedom of speech rights. In their anti-intimidation lawsuit, the environmental group argues that 27 US states can now block enforcement of such lawfare through anti-SLAPP lawsuits, which can then force companies to pay back compensation for legal fees and damages.

Numerous legal experts argue that SLAPP lawsuits are a powerful tool to silence the public, since the law “buries” protestors in staggering legal costs. Many Constitutional experts believe SLAPP violates the First Amendment’s freedom of speech.

“The verdict is a loss for Greenpeace, but more so for the First Amendment right to speak out, and thus for all Americans,” said James Wheaton of the nonprofit First Amendment Project. “If huge corporations can do this to one, they can do it to everyone.

If the EU lawsuit does back Greenpeace, however, it is unknown if their declaration will be accepted in an appeal in the US brought by Greenpeace.

The original lawsuit was filed against protests by Native Americans and Greenpeace in North Dakota in 2016 and 2017, when the giant Dallas-based energy company began work on the controversial pipeline, called the Dakota Pipeline.

In a statement, Energy Transfer endorsed the jury’s verdict.

“This verdict serves as a powerful affirmation of the First Amendment. Peaceful protest is an inherent American right; however, violent and destructive protest is unlawful and unacceptable,” the statement read.

In a statement that is the polar opposite of Energy Transfers, the lead attorney from Greenpoint said, “We should all be concerned about the future of the First Amendment, and lawsuits like this aimed at destroying our rights to peaceful protest and free speech.”