Greenpeace is required to pay $345 million in damages for protests against the pipeline 0 9

The court's decision concludes one phase of a long-standing case, opening the possibility for an appeal process.

Dallas-based company ET accused Greenpeace of organizing violence and defamation during the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline nearly ten years ago.

A jury in North Dakota ruled in March last year that three branches of Greenpeace must collectively pay over $660 million in damages for charges of trespassing, creating obstacles, conspiracy, and hindering access to property.

North Dakota Judge James Gion on Friday halved that amount, determining that part of the damages had been counted twice.

Greenpeace categorically rejects the accusations, condemning the process as a means to suppress dissent. The organization stated its intention to appeal the decision and has repeatedly emphasized that it cannot pay hundreds of millions of dollars.

The case in North Dakota is related to the Dakota Access Pipeline, against which Sioux tribe members organized some of the largest fossil fuel protests in U.S. history in 2016–2017.

During the demonstrations, hundreds of people were arrested and injured. The situation drew the attention of the United Nations, which expressed concern over possible violations of the sovereignty of indigenous peoples. Despite the protests, the pipeline began operations in 2017.

Initially, ET sought to recover $300 million in federal court, but the case was dismissed there.

The company then decided to continue the process in North Dakota state court, and ET's head, billionaire Kelcy Warren, who donated significant funds to U.S. President Donald Trump's campaign, openly stated that his goal was to oppose Greenpeace. He also expressed that activists "should be excluded from the gene pool."

Greenpeace insists that the organization’s involvement in the indigenous-led protest movement was minimal and peaceful.

Greenpeace International announced plans in 2025 to file a counterclaim against ET in the Netherlands, accusing the company of using legal proceedings to suppress dissent. The organization is seeking compensation for legal costs.