ABC News sued for defamation over “pink slime” reports
Earlier this year, ABC News turned the countrys collective stomach with a series of reports on the meat product dubbed pink slime. Now the news network is facing an unappetizing defamation lawsuit, courtesy of an angry South Dakota beef processor.
September 14, 2012 at 07:24 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Earlier this year, ABC News turned the country's collective stomach with a series of reports on the meat product dubbed “pink slime.” Now the news network is facing an unappetizing defamation lawsuit, courtesy of an angry South Dakota beef processor.
In court papers filed Thursday, Beef Products Inc. (BPI) accused ABC of falsely reporting that its product was unsafe, unhealthy and “more like gelatin than meat.”
“Pink slime,” also known as “lean, finely textured beef” (LFTB), is made from meat scraps that are treated with ammonium hydroxide to kill bacteria. Meat producers and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) maintain that the product is safe to consume. But ABC News set off a media firestorm earlier this year when it reported that 70 percent of supermarket ground beef contains LFTB filler, even though the USDA does not require food labels to reflect this fact.
In the wake of the reports, schools, supermarkets and major restaurant chains—including McDonald's Corp., Safeway Inc. and Taco Bell—announced they would no longer use ground beef containing LFTB.
According to BPI, the uproar cost the company millions of dollars in revenue, forced it to shut down three of its four plants and led to the firing of 700 workers. “To call a food product slime is the most pejorative term that could be imagined,” the company's lawyer, Daniel Webb, said at a press briefing. “ABC's constant repetition of it, night after night after night, had a huge impact on the consuming public.”
The suit accuses ABC of acting with “malice,” but proving that in court may be tricky. To win its case, BPI will have to show that the news network knowingly broadcast false information intending to do harm to the meat processor.
Other defendants in the suit include ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer, reporters Jim Avila and David Kerley, and Gerald Zirnstein, a former USDA microbiologist who coined the term “pink slime” in a 2002 email. BPI is seeking at least $400 million in compensatory damages—which could be tripled under South Dakota state law—in addition to punitive damages.
Read more on the story at Reuters.
And for more InsideCounsel coverage of “pink slime” and other food controversies see:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
3 minute readOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
Lawsuit Against Amazon Could Reshape E-Commerce Landscape
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250