A Dutch court recently allowed Greenpeace International’s countersuit against Energy Transfer to proceed, marking an early test of the EU’s Anti-SLAPP Directive and raising questions about cross-border review of US court rulings.

Energy Transfer (the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline) sued Greenpeace entities (including Greenpeace USA, Greenpeace International, and related funds) over protests against the pipeline, particularly those linked to the 2016 Standing Rock actions. They alleged defamation, trespass, tortious interference, civil conspiracy, and other claims stemming from protests that delayed construction.

In March 2025, a North Dakota jury found Greenpeace liable and awarded over $660 million in damages. The judge later reduced this to around $345 million in a finalized judgment.

Greenpeace has called this a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) — an abusive suit intended to intimidate activists and critics rather than a meritorious claim — and is appealing in the US system.

US anti-SLAPP legislation is a patchwork of state laws with no comprehensive federal statute, creating significant variation in protections against Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.

US anti-SLAPP laws have expanded significantly since California’s 1992 pioneer statute, offering robust defenses in many jurisdictions. However, the lack of federal coverage and state variation limit nationwide consistency. Continued adoption of UPEPA and potential federal legislation would strengthen protections while balancing access to courts for valid claims. For state-specific details, resources like the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press or Institute for Free Speech provide guides and report cards.

Greenpeace International (headquartered in Amsterdam) filed a countersuit in the Netherlands in early 2025, invoking the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive (2024/1069), which aims to protect against manifestly unfounded or abusive lawsuits that chill public participation.

On or around June 3-4, 2026, a Dutch court in Amsterdam ruled that Greenpeace’s lawsuit could proceed under Dutch law. It rejected Energy Transfer’s attempts to block it (e.g., via interim pleas), though it reportedly did not fully rely on the EU Directive itself in this preliminary stage.

This allows Greenpeace to argue that the US proceedings were abusive, seek to block enforcement of any US judgment in Europe, and potentially recover costs/damages.

The Directive (effective since 2024) includes provisions for third-country (non-EU) judgments:

Article 16: EU member state courts can refuse recognition/enforcement of foreign judgments if they stem from “manifestly unfounded or abusive” proceedings.

Article 17: Provides a jurisdictional basis for EU-domiciled targets of such suits to seek remedies in EU courts.

This is the first major test case for applying these protections against a US ruling.

Potential Consequences for Europe (EU Member States)

Strengthened protections for public participation:

A Greenpeace victory (or favorable settlement) could validate the use of national laws + the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive (2024/1069) to shield EU-domiciled NGOs, journalists, and activists from costly foreign suits. This includes refusing enforcement of “abusive” US judgments (Article 16) and awarding damages/costs via home courts (Article 17). It may encourage more “SLAPP-back” suits and faster transposition/strengthening of national laws.

Chilling effect on activism reduced (or mixed):

Supporters argue it deters corporate intimidation and upholds free speech/protest rights, especially for environmental and human rights causes. Critics worry it could shield unlawful protest tactics (e.g., blockades causing real economic harm) and encourage forum-shopping by activists.

Legal and enforcement fragmentation:

Uneven transposition (deadline May 2026) risks inconsistent application across Member States. Conflicting judgments increase (EU vs. US), complicating enforcement. EU courts may face heavier burdens reviewing foreign proceedings on the merits.

Broader civic space impact:

Could set a precedent for other cross-border cases, boosting EU tools against global SLAPPs while highlighting reliance on headquarters location for jurisdiction.

Potential Consequences for the USA

Challenges to judicial sovereignty and comity: European refusal to enforce US judgments (even reduced ones like the ~$345M award) could undermine US court authority, especially in cases with strong domestic evidence of harm (trespass, nuisance, etc.). This risks perceptions of “second-guessing” US jury verdicts on US-soil events.

Corporate and investment risks: US companies (especially energy/infrastructure) operating in or with EU ties may face higher litigation uncertainty, “SLAPP-back” exposure, and collection difficulties against EU entities. This could deter projects or raise costs. Energy Transfer has operations in the Netherlands, making enforcement attempts relevant.

Pushback via antisuit injunctions: US courts (as seen in North Dakota proceedings) may issue injunctions limiting pursuit of foreign countersuits, escalating parallel litigation battles.

Policy and legislative responses: Could accelerate calls for a federal US anti-SLAPP law to create uniformity and reciprocity arguments. Heightens transatlantic tensions on free speech standards (US First Amendment vs. EU balancing with other rights).

Shared / Transatlantic Consequences

Increased legal friction and uncertainty:

Parallel proceedings, antisuit measures, and non-enforcement create a “race to judgment” dynamic, raising costs and unpredictability for all parties. No overarching US-EU judgment recognition treaty exacerbates this.

Energy security and trade implications:

In a context of US-EU LNG/energy deals aimed at reducing Russian dependence, disputes involving major pipeline/energy firms could strain relations or affect investment confidence.

Broader precedent:

If successful for Greenpeace, it may inspire more EU-based entities to resist US litigation; conversely, a loss or limited win could temper expectations. Long-term, it highlights differing US/EU approaches to protest accountability vs. speech protections.

Political polarization:

Framed by some as protecting democracy/civic space and by others as enabling unaccountable activism or undermining rule of law.

Current status (June 2026):

The Dutch case proceeds on the merits after the jurisdiction win, but the US judgment is under appeal, and antisuit measures complicate matters. Full effects depend on final rulings, appeals, enforcement attempts, and how other EU states apply the Directive. This remains a dynamic test case rather than a settled precedent. Outcomes will likely influence future transnational activism and corporate defense strategies for years.