A Dutch court ruled it can hear Greenpeace International’s anti-SLAPP lawsuit against Energy Transfer, allowing the case to proceed in the Netherlands [1].
The decision marks a significant legal step for the environmental NGO as it attempts to challenge the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation. These tactics are often used to silence critics through expensive and intimidating legal actions.
The ruling, issued on Wednesday, June 3, 2026, in Amsterdam, follows a long history of conflict over the Dakota Access Pipeline [1]. The original indigenous-led protests against the pipeline occurred between 2016 and 2017 [2].
Greenpeace alleges that Energy Transfer used intimidation tactics to suppress criticism of the company's role in those protests [1]. This legal battle follows a 2025 jury verdict in North Dakota that was handed down against Greenpeace [2].
In that U.S. case, Energy Transfer sought $345 million in damages [3]. While some reports indicate a North Dakota court attempted to bar the pursuit of a lawsuit in Europe, the Dutch court has maintained its jurisdiction to hear the matter [1].
The case focuses on whether the company's legal actions constitute a SLAPP suit designed to chill free speech, and environmental activism. By allowing the case to move forward, the court provides a venue for Greenpeace to argue its claims outside of the U.S. legal system [1].
“A Dutch court ruled it can hear Greenpeace International’s anti-SLAPP lawsuit against Energy Transfer.”
This ruling highlights a growing international tension between U.S. corporate legal strategies and European judicial standards regarding free speech. If the Dutch court finds that Energy Transfer engaged in SLAPP tactics, it could set a precedent that makes it more difficult for U.S. companies to use aggressive litigation to deter international environmental activism.
