One would think that if there are clear cut examples of false statements that could do on the order of $300M in damage to the company, it wouldn't be difficult to find them. But the defamation allegations I'm reading don't seem to fit in that category, like

  * Accusations that Energy Transfer employed aggressive tactics against protesters. 

  * Claims that Energy Transfer desecrated burial sites during the pipeline construction.

  * Statements characterizing the Dakota Access Pipeline project as "climate destroying".

  * Assertions that Energy Transfer was "motivated entirely by money, not its proclaimed concerns about environmental impacts".

  * Allegations that the pipeline posed a threat to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's water resources.

These all seem to involve opinion as much as fact. What constitutes aggressive tactics, desecration, climate destruction, motivation, a threat to water resources? Are these damaging statements? Yes. Are they false? That's just, like, your opinion man. There should be an analogue of the Major Questions Doctrine to limit the power of juries for the same reason as for bureaucrats: legislators should answer those.