Greenpeace International wins preliminary phase of anti-SLAPP case vs. Energy Transfer

Greenpeace International’s landmark anti-SLAPP lawsuit took a major step forward when the Amsterdam District Court rejected Energy Transfer’s latest attempt to avoid accountability for its unlawful actions, including back-to-back abusive lawsuits filed in the US. Netherlands-based Greenpeace International is seeking legal recognition that Energy Transfer has acted and continues to act unlawfully, as well as relief from the resulting harm.

Mads Christensen, Greenpeace International, Executive Director said:

“People are tired of billionaires and their polluting corporations behaving like the law does not apply to them. Greenpeace International is holding this Big Oil bully accountable for repeated attempts at silencing our speech. 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.”

Today the Amsterdam District Court entirely rejected Energy Transfer’s preliminary plea seeking dismissal of Greenpeace International’s anti-SLAPP case, arguing that the Amsterdam District Court lacks jurisdiction, and in the alternative, asking for a stay (suspension) of the proceedings until the final outcome of the case in North Dakota.[1] The court heard arguments on this plea on 16 April 2026. Previously, the North Dakota District Court and state Supreme Court both denied Energy Transfer’s request to halt Greenpeace International’s anti-SLAPP lawsuit.[2]

The Amsterdam District Court gave Energy Transfer six weeks to file its defence on the merits under Dutch law.[3] In the meantime, the company has been ordered to pay Greenpeace International €1.495 in costs.

Energy Transfer’s abusive lawsuits against Greenpeace International and the Greenpeace organisations in the US (Greenpeace Inc. and Greenpeace Fund) remain 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.[4] These are clear-cut examples of SLAPPs — lawsuits attempting to bury nonprofits and activists in legal fees and ultimately silence dissent.

Daniel Simons, Senior Legal Counsel Strategic Defense, Greenpeace International said: “For a third time, Energy Transfer has failed to halt our case. After unsuccessfully petitioning two levels of North Dakota courts and the Amsterdam District Court, Energy Transfer will have to face accountability for its conduct, including repeated abusive lawsuits and defamatory statements. Greenpeace International carries on this legal fight to remedy the harms suffered as a result of Energy Transfer’s intimidation tactics and to ensure corporate bullies know they now have to answer in court if they bring SLAPP suits.”

In parallel to the anti-SLAPP case in the Netherlands, Greenpeace International and Greenpeace organisations in the US continue the legal fight against Energy Transfer’s most recent SLAPP in North Dakota. Following a District Court judgment awarding US$345 million to Energy Transfer in February 2026, the Greenpeace defendants are seeking a new trial and, if necessary, will appeal the decision with the North Dakota Supreme Court.[4]

To help raise awareness of the threat of — and resistance to— SLAPP lawsuits, Greenpeace International recently collaborated with award-winning activist artists Javier Bardem and Yasmin Finney on a short film. SLAPP Suit brings to life the sinister threat of corporate bullying while reminding us that we all have the personal strength to resist these attempts at silencing us.[5]

ENDS

Notes

[1] The Court also rejected Energy Transfer’s request to be allowed an interlocutory appeal against its decision before the case is heard on its merits. Additionally, the court issued firm instructions to Energy Transfer not to conflate the actions of different Greenpeace entities, a tactic it resorted to in its previous pleadings in the case.

[2] Energy Transfer requested an anti-suit injunction from the Morton County District Court in North Dakota in July 2025 looking for protection from Greenpeace International’s anti-SLAPP lawsuit in the Netherlands. In September 2025, the North Dakota District Court denied the request. Following an appeal of that decision by Energy Transfer, the North Dakota Supreme Court largely rejected that request in April 2026, calling for a “narrowly tailored” anti-suit injunction that expressly indicated Greenpeace International has no restrictions for moving forward with key claims in the anti-SLAPP case.

[3] The remainder of the case will be argued under Dutch law only, after the court ruled — contrary to the position of the Dutch government — that relevant parts of the European Union’s anti-SLAPP Directive are not effective yet in Dutch law and will require an implementing act.

[4] Energy Transfer’s first lawsuit was filed in federal court in 2017 under the RICO Act – the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a US federal statute designed to prosecute mob activity. The case was dismissed in 2019, with the judge stating the evidence fell “far short” of what was needed to establish a RICO enterprise. The federal court did not decide on Energy Transfer’s claims based on state law, so Energy Transfer promptly filed a new case in a North Dakota state court with these and other state law claims.

[5] Greenpeace defendants file motion for new trial in North Dakota court.

[6] The full film, SLAPP Suit, is available to watch on Greenpeace YouTube channel. Stills and behind the scenes gallery are available in the Greenpeace Media Library.