Lawyers representing Greenpeace urged a North Dakota state judge on Thursday to significantly reduce a $666 million verdict awarded against the environmental organization in a high-profile case concerning the Dakota Access pipeline.

The post-trial hearing follows a March verdict in which a Morton County jury awarded nearly $322 million to Energy Transfer and over $344 million to Dakota Access LLC. Greenpeace was held liable for multiple claims, including trespass, conversion, nuisance, defamation, tortious interference, and exemplary damages related to the widely publicized 2016-2017 protests.

Steven Caplow, counsel for Greenpeace Inc. and Greenpeace International, argued before Judge James Gion that North Dakota law provides clear authority to reduce excessively large verdicts — especially when awards exceed damages experts' recommendations. Caplow described the $666 million verdict as the "poster child" for reduction, emphasizing extraordinary circumstances that warrant judicial intervention.

“We have a plaintiff that recovered $200 million they didn’t even request,” Caplow stated. “This is precisely where the court has both the discretion and the obligation to reduce damages.”

Caplow highlighted multiple issues with the verdict, including damages awarded for incidents occurring before Greenpeace’s involvement or outside the geographic scope of its protests. He also cited a statutory cap on exemplary damages in North Dakota that should reduce the award by more than $43 million. Furthermore, he noted that many awards to Energy Transfer were for claims solely applicable to Dakota Access, such as property-related damages.

The defense also challenged the jury’s omission of comparative fault from the verdict form, which Greenpeace preserved the right to raise post-trial. “A party never pays for someone else’s damages,” Caplow stressed.

Opposing the reduction motion, Trey Cox, attorney for Energy Transfer and Dakota Access, maintained that North Dakota law permits reduction only if a verdict is “perverse and clearly contrary to the evidence.” Cox argued that the punitive damages awarded are within the state’s preferred 2:1 ratio and that Greenpeace waived the right to contest comparative fault by failing to submit appropriate verdict forms multiple times.

Judge Gion, constrained by court scheduling, did not issue immediate rulings and indicated further hearings would occur, with the next scheduled for May 27, when Greenpeace’s motion for judgment as a matter of law will be heard.

The original jury verdict found that Greenpeace’s statements during protests about environmental and cultural concerns caused property vandalism, arson, and harassment of pipeline workers, resulting in substantial financial losses and project delays.

Greenpeace has characterized the lawsuit as a serious threat to free speech and its organizational future.