A jury in North Dakota has ruled against Greenpeace, ordering the environmental organisation to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in damages to Energy Transfer, the company behind the controversial Dakota Access oil pipeline.

The case revolves around the mass protests that took place in 2016 and 2017 against the pipeline, particularly due to its route crossing the Standing Rock Indian Reservation.

Protesters, including Native American communities and environmental activists, feared the project could contaminate their land and water supply.

Energy Transfer accused Greenpeace of defamation and inciting a violent campaign against the company, claiming the organisation misled the public and encouraged direct action that led to financial losses.

This is not the first time Energy Transfer has pursued Greenpeace in court. The Texas-based company initially sought $300 million in a federal lawsuit, but the case was dismissed. They later took the battle to a local North Dakota court, where the jury ruled in their favour.

Critics argue that the lawsuit is part of a wider trend of corporations using legal action to silence environmental activists, a tactic known as SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation).

Greenpeace has not yet publicly responded to the ruling, but the case could have significant implications for environmental organisations and activists worldwide.

What do you make of this ruling?