For months, Greenpeace Brazil lived under the shadow of a lawsuit that many feared could muzzle one of the country’s loudest environmental voices. In April 2025, during JBS’s Annual General Meeting in São Paulo, activists staged a peaceful protest outside the meat giant’s headquarters. Their message was blunt: JBS profits, forests burn.

JBS, the world’s largest meatpacking company, responded with lawyers. It accused Greenpeace Brazil of organising an “illegal protest,” misusing its brand, and damaging its reputation. The lawsuit was emblematic of a tactic increasingly familiar in Brazil and beyond — powerful corporations turning to the courts in an attempt to suppress dissent through strategic lawsuits against public participation, better known as SLAPP suits.

But this time, the strategy failed.

Last week, the São Paulo Court of Justice handed down a first-instance decision that sided with Greenpeace. The court confirmed that the protest was not only lawful but also protected under Brazil’s Constitution. Peaceful activism, it ruled, is a legitimate tool to address issues of broad public concern, including deforestation, pollution, and climate impacts linked to JBS’s vast supply chains.

“This isn’t just a win for Greenpeace Brazil,” the organisation said in a statement.

“It’s a victory for civil society, for environmental defenders, and for anyone who believes corporations must be held accountable.”

A Corporation Under Fire

JBS, headquartered in São Paulo but operating on a global scale, has long been criticised for its environmental footprint. Investigations have repeatedly tied the company’s beef supply chain to illegal deforestation in the Amazon and Cerrado, as well as to greenhouse gas emissions that dwarf those of many countries.

The stakes are high: Brazil is home to the Amazon rainforest, a vital carbon sink that scientists warn is approaching a tipping point. Agribusiness — cattle ranching chief among it — is the leading driver of deforestation. Greenpeace, along with Indigenous leaders and environmental groups, has made JBS a central target in its campaigns, accusing the company of fuelling a climate emergency while pocketing billions.

JBS has often rejected those claims, pointing to sustainability commitments and pledges to monitor its suppliers. But critics say enforcement has been weak and transparency lacking. The company’s resort to the courts, they argue, was another way of avoiding scrutiny.

The Right to Resist

The São Paulo court’s decision carries weight far beyond this single protest. In recognising Greenpeace’s right to demonstrate, it reinforced that activism is not a nuisance but a cornerstone of democracy. At a time when Brazil’s environmental defenders face growing threats — from criminalisation to violence — this ruling sends a message that peaceful protest must be safeguarded.

It also underscores the dangers of corporate attempts to weaponise the legal system. SLAPP suits drain resources, intimidate activists, and seek to chill public debate. Legal scholars warn they are on the rise in Latin America, mirroring patterns seen in the United States and Europe. By dismissing JBS’s claims, the court has set a precedent that could deter similar efforts.

A Movement, Not Just a Moment

For Greenpeace and allied movements, the verdict is fuel for a larger struggle. They are urging supporters to sign petitions demanding accountability from Big Agriculture, to pressure governments for stronger forest protections, and to back Indigenous communities defending their land.

The timing is critical. Despite pledges at global climate summits, deforestation in the Amazon continues, and agribusiness interests remain deeply entwined with Brazilian politics. Civil society groups argue that without public pressure, corporations like JBS will face little incentive to change.

“Folks, it is time to resist,” Greenpeace wrote in its announcement. That resistance, it seems, now has the law firmly on its side.