Amsterdam Court Lets Greenpeace's Anti-SLAPP Suit Against Energy Transfer Move Forward
Amsterdam court rejected Energy Transfer’s bid to dismiss Greenpeace’s anti-SLAPP lawsuit.
Why it matters: Environmental litigation increasingly involves legal pushback against activism. This ruling highlights international judicial support for protecting free speech and activism under the EU’s anti-SLAPP directive.
- On June 3, 2026, Amsterdam District Court confirmed jurisdiction over Greenpeace International's lawsuit against Energy Transfer.
- Greenpeace’s suit challenges a $345 million damages award from a North Dakota jury against Greenpeace related to Dakota Access Pipeline protests.
- The court ordered Energy Transfer to pay €1,495 in legal costs to Greenpeace for the preliminary phase.
- Greenpeace accuses Energy Transfer of using SLAPP tactics to silence free speech and Indigenous-led protests.
On June 3, 2026, the Amsterdam District Court confirmed it has jurisdiction to hear Greenpeace International’s lawsuit against Energy Transfer, rejecting the company’s argument that the court lacked authority. This ruling allows Greenpeace's anti-SLAPP case to move forward.
Greenpeace's legal action responds to a $345 million damages award issued by a North Dakota jury, which held Greenpeace liable for losses connected to its protests against the Dakota Access oil pipeline. Greenpeace contends this lengthy litigation is an attempt by Energy Transfer to intimidate and silence environmental activism.
Mads Christensen, Executive Director of Greenpeace International, stated, "Energy Transfer is clearly desperate to avoid this case, but Kelcy Warren’s pipeline company will have to answer for its actions here in the Netherlands." He also accused Energy Transfer of "blatant attempts to silence free speech, erase Indigenous leadership of the Standing Rock movement, and punish solidarity with the ongoing, peaceful resistance to the Dakota Access Pipeline."
In addition to allowing the case to proceed, the court ordered Energy Transfer to pay Greenpeace €1,495 in costs related to the preliminary phase, signaling judicial support for combating so-called SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) tactics. These suits are widely regarded as efforts to chill activism, and the case represents one of the first tests of the European Union's anti-SLAPP Directive protections.
This development is significant for legal professionals monitoring environmental litigation strategies and the growing application of anti-SLAPP laws internationally. It underscores courts' willingness to provide a forum for defending public participation and environmental activism against corporate legal pressure.
By the numbers:
- €1,495 — legal costs Energy Transfer must pay Greenpeace following the preliminary ruling
- $345 million — damages awarded in North Dakota jury trial against Greenpeace related to pipeline protests
What's next: The timeline for the next steps in the Amsterdam court proceedings remains uncertain, as Energy Transfer's response to this ruling has not been disclosed.