The European Union's new anti-SLAPP law is being put to the test as Greenpeace International, headquartered in Amsterdam, challenges a $666 million US court judgment levelled against it by Energy Transfer - the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), international media report.

In March 2025, a North Dakota jury ruled in favour of Energy Transfer, claiming Greenpeace coordinated the 2016 Standing Rock protests.

SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) are often used to silence dissent and impose massive legal and emotional costs on activists, journalists, and civil society groups. "The process is the purpose," said Betsy Apple, director of the Global Climate Legal Defence Fund. "The whole point of a SLAPP is a war of attrition."

Greenpeace has faced multiple SLAPP suits globally, including from oil giants Shell, Total, and ENI. The case against it in the US stands out for both the scale of the judgment and the precedent it may set.

One catalyst for the EU directive was the case of Maltese investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, assassinated by a car bomb in 2017. Before her death, she faced over 40 SLAPP suits, some of which her family is still fighting. One such suit was filed in Arizona, seeking $40 million. Her case helped spur the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE) and other advocates to push for EU-wide protections.

To counter this growing trend, the European Commission adopted a directive in 2024 to protect public watchdogs from abusive lawsuits, known as Daphne's law. A key provision allows courts in EU member states to reject enforcement of foreign judgments that violate public policy and to shield European actors from legal actions in jurisdictions outside the EU.

Under the new rules, cross-border relevance is broadly interpreted. Even if both parties are based in the same EU country, a case can be classified as cross-border if it has broader European public significance. Greenpeace International is invoking Article 17 of the Directive to seek compensation in Dutch courts for the enormous costs of defending the US case.

"This is a test case of whether Dutch law, in light of this Directive, is capable of protecting civil society actors from US judicial weaponization," said Apple. The directive also allows EU countries to reject enforcement of non-EU judgments, a provision Greenpeace may invoke if the North Dakota ruling is finalised.

However, the directive cannot help Greenpeace USA or the Greenpeace Fund, which must pursue appeals in the US court system. "That's just a fact of jurisdictional differences and, frankly, judicial and legislative values," Apple noted.

Energy Transfer's lawsuit originally invoked the RICO law - meant to target organised crime - but was dismissed for lack of evidence. The company refiled in state court, accusing Greenpeace of an "extremist agenda" and "tortious interference". The evidence included a single funding transfer of $15,000 to support nonviolent training and one letter co-signed by Greenpeace International urging banks to cut DAPL funding - also signed by 500 other groups.

Energy Transfer claimed over $200 million in damages, despite completing the pipeline and earning over $40 billion in 2017.

Greenpeace's case in Europe seeks not only financial relief but also to set a precedent against corporate abuse of the courts. "We're far behind in understanding the damage SLAPPs do to democracy in the US," Apple said. "Europe sees the threat more clearly."