The rise of SLAPPs in the EU

As ESG litigation and shareholder activism continues to grow (please be referred to our earlier trend report), companies increasingly resort to legal tactics aimed at countering its impact. One such tactic is the use of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs). SLAPPs are intended not to prevail on legal grounds but to deter critics through costly and time-consuming proceedings.

In the context of (anti-)ESG litigation, SLAPPs may target shareholders, NGOs or individuals advocating for ESG initiatives (for more information regarding the rise of SLAPPs, please refer to our earlier blog). These tactics are especially harmful where the claimant engages in the practice of ‘forum shopping’: claimants often (threaten to) bring legal actions before courts of foreign countries to increase pressure.

Examples of cases against public participation

SLAPPs are increasingly used as backlash against ESG initiatives, although legal proceedings against public participation are far from a new tactic. A notable Dutch example already dates to 2000. In that case a chemical company brought legal proceedings against a group of dairy farmers who had formed an action committee after a defective veterinary product harmed their livestock. Despite having already acknowledged liability, the company sued the farmers over their public protest actions. The court ruled in favour of the company, finding that the action committee has exceeded the limits of its freedom of expression (please find the judgment here). The court emphasised that while the State and public organisations must tolerate provocative speech, companies are not held to the same standard.

While the ruling in 2000 seems to reflect a legal landscape in which corporate reputation outweighs public protest, this approach seems to be gradually shifted. A recent example is the Advocate General’s opinion to the Dutch Supreme Court of 28 August 2025 (link), which – although not concerning a SLAPP as such – explicitly recognises the chilling effect of litigation against public participation and signals stronger protection for critical voices in public-interest debates.

An example of a SLAPP case used as an anti-ESG strategy is the case brought by Energy Transfer against Greenpeace in the US (please be referred to our earlier blog). Greenpeace, based in the Netherlands, criticized Energy Transfer’s commercial activities in an open letter. In response, Energy Transfer initiated two proceedings in the US against Greenpeace, resulting in judgment awarding over USD 660 million in damages.  Greenpeace subsequently initiated proceedings in the Netherlands in February 2025 against Energy Transfer. Greenpeace argues that these US proceedings effectively constitute a SLAPP, aimed at silencing Greenpeace. Although the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive (the Directive) (link) is not yet transposed into Dutch law (please see below), Greenpeace relied on the principles and rules set out therein..

The EU Anti-SLAPP Directive and Dutch implementation thereof

The Directive introduces several procedural safeguards against SLAPPs, including the possibility of security to be provided by the claimant for the estimated cost of the proceedings and possible damages of the defendant. Other safeguards are early dismissal and penalties. The Directive permits entities domiciled in the EU to initiate proceedings before European courts to claim damages caused by non-EU entities in SLAPPs which took place outside the EU. EU Member States must implement the Directive before 7 May 2026.

On 15 April 2025, the Dutch government submitted a draft implementation act to align Dutch law with the Directive (the Draft Act, link). the Draft Act is concise as Dutch civil procedural law already foresees in the procedural safeguards of the Directive, except for the possibility of security. To implement this safeguard into Dutch law, the Draft Act entails a new provision that  allows Dutch courts in case of a potential SLAPP to require claimants to provide security for the estimated cost of the proceedings and possible damages of the defendant (likely in the form of a bank guarantee). Although the Directive only applies to cross-border SLAPPs, the Dutch government sees value in extending similar protections to domestic cases as well. The Draft Act currently awaits parliamentary approval.

In its advice of 5 December 2024 (link), the Dutch Council for the Judiciary (Raad voor de Rechtspraak) supported the Draft Act being concise. However, the council expressed various concerns. Early dismissal and ordering security may conflict with the principle of hearing both sides, which is fundamental to fair trial standards under Dutch procedural law. Additionally, the Council pointed out that ordering financial security is procedurally complex and may require a separate hearing, potentially undermining procedural efficiency and access to justice.

Omnibus: deregulation as a form of backlash on ESG-regulation?

While anti-SLAPP litigation and legislation is emerging, ESG regulation has moderated because of growing political pressure. Since early 2025, the EU legislator has actively targeted the CSRD and CSDDD in its aim to deregulate EU sustainability rules via the so-called Omnibus (please be referred to our earlier blog on this). Omnibus responds to a global trend of backlash on ESG, as part of a broader strategy for the EU to be more ‘competitive’. Notably, the CSRD and CSDDD just entered into effect in 2023 and 2024.

The first step towards deregulation via the Omnibus for the EU legislator was the so-called ‘stop the clock’ proposal. This first Omnibus provides for a two-year deferral of CSRD reporting obligations for certain large undertakings that have not yet commenced reporting, and a one-year postponement of the transposition and initial application of the CSDDD (please be referred to our earlier blog on this). The second step of Omnibus simplifies the obligations under both the CSRD and CSDDD. On 23 June 2025, the EU Council adopted its final position on the second Omnibus proposal (please be referred to our earlier blog on this). Key envisaged changes include higher applicability thresholds, streamlined reporting requirements, and a more risk-based approach to due diligence. By watering down such obligations, the EU legislator lowers the bar for corporate accountability. Therefore, the Omnibus development seems to represent a form of backlash on the rise of ESG regulations within the EU.

The rise of (anti-)ESG litigation

As EU ESG regulation faces delays and dilution, litigation increasingly fills the enforcement gap of corporate accountability. In the Netherlands, ESG-related claims – often via class actions under the Dutch WAMCA regime – are on the rise (see our recent trend report). Within ESG litigation the backlash on ESG is also visible.

The Shell-I case: backlash on ESG via ESG litigation

In the landmark Shell-I case, Milieudefensie successfully sued Shell to align its emissions with the Paris Agreement. On appeal, the Court of Appeal confirmed Shell’s ‘general’ duty to mitigate climate change but overturned the specific reduction obligation (please be referred to our case analysis in first instance and appeal). On appeal, Shell received support from interest groups advocating for energy affordability and economic stability: supporting group Milieu & Mens was admitted to the proceedings, while supporting group Clintel was rejected. In cassation brought by Milieudefensie, the Advocate General advised the Dutch Supreme Court to admit Milieu & Mens, concluding it meets admissibility requirements and has a legitimate interest (link). The case shows that ESG litigation also serves as a platform for competing societal interests.

The Groningen gas-case: ESG-driven policy meets commercial interests

The Groningen gas-case illustrates how ESG-related state decisions can trigger complex legal responses from private actors, such as companies. After the Dutch government decided to halt gas extraction due to earthquake risks and public pressure, Shell and ExxonMobil initiated closed-door arbitration proceedings against the Dutch government, seeking compensation. On 20 February 2025, the Dutch government was ordered to disclose details about levies imposed for extraction-related damages (link). The main proceedings remain ongoing. While this case may reflect broader tensions around ESG-driven policy decisions, it mainly shows how environmental and societal measures can lead to complex legal and financial challenges.

What to expect next?

The ESG landscape is becoming increasingly complex. As regulatory ambition on ESG within the EU appears to be softening, litigation is gaining importance as a tool to enforce corporate accountability. At the same time, companies and interested groups push back against ESG claims. Not only as defendants in ESG litigation, but also through SLAPPs or by intervening in ESG litigation proceedings to promote competing interests. Courts are increasingly called upon to balance ESG-related concerns, including climate action and human rights, with competing interests such as energy affordability and investment protection.

Get in touch

Our firm is closely monitoring (anti-)ESG litigation. Please feel free to contact one of our colleagues below for more information.