Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons

By Scott Kennedy

The U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota is currently considering a motion by ABC News to dismiss a defamation suit brought against it by Beef Products, Inc. (BPI), the makers of “lean finely textured beef (LFTB).” Last March ABC News reported on the beef product, which its critics call “pink slime,” sparking widespread consumer outrage. In response, BPI recently filed suit against ABC under South Dakota’s defamation law and another state law permitting businesses to recover from anyone who knowingly disseminates false information about food safety.

LFTB is a product made from beef trimmings which are processed into a smooth substance and treated with ammonia for safety. ABC’s report described the nature of the product, of which many consumers had been unaware, and warned that 70 percent of supermarket ground beef contains the product. The story was widely re-circulated and discussed across social media, and BPI says that it had to suspend operations at several of its plants after the decrease in demand that resulted.

BPI filed suit in South Dakota state court in September seeking $400 million in compensatory damages, which could potentially be tripled under a South Dakota law pertaining to the disparagement of agricultural products. The complaint alleges that ABC’s reporting included false and defamatory statements that misled consumers to believe LFTB is unsafe. ABC recently removed the suit to federal court, where it now seeks to dismiss the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In a supporting memorandum it argues, among other things, that none of its statements described LFTB as unsafe, that BPI’s lawsuit threatens to impede free speech, and that while “pink slime” may be an unflatteringly colorful description, it conveys no false information about the product.

The survival of BPI’s lawsuit is of particular interest because it echoes another controversial episode at the intersection of the beef industry and defamation law. In 1996, and again in 1998, Oprah Winfrey was famously sued by a group of cattle ranchers alleging that her televised discussions of mad cow disease libelously misled consumers about the safety of the U.S. beef supply. After six years of legal battles and escalating costs Ms. Winfrey prevailed, but ABC news no doubt hopes to prevent a protracted fight. Should the action eventually go to trial BPI will face a steep challenge, however: their claims require proof not only that ABC’s reporting misled consumers to the detriment of the industry, but also that the news team knew or suspected their statements to be false. ABC news denies any such knowledge. More information about the case can be found under the name Beef Products Inc et al v. American Broadcasting Cos et al, U.S. District Court, District of South Dakota, No. 12-4183.

Photo Credit: public-domain-images.com

By Lauren Guicheteau

With surveillance technology becoming cheaper and more advanced, law enforcement agencies are incorporating this technology into crime fighting strategies. However, the courts that regulate the activities of law enforcement still rely on outdated privacy jurisprudence that does not weigh the new realities of advanced technology. Recently, U.S. District Judge William Griesbach for the Eastern District of Wisconsin denied a request to suppress video evidence that Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents had gained from installing cameras on private property without a warrant. The private property in question was a large area of land that was surrounded by a fence bearing “no trespassing” signs. The cameras were installed to get video of defendants, Marco Magana and Manuel Mendoza, using the land to grow marijuana. Continue reading →

Photo Credit: Chrystal Parsons

By Colin Conerton

For many students, buying textbooks online from private sellers is a wonderful way to save money while in school. Typically, the cost of a used book is substantially lower than buying a new one. Unfortunately for students and sellers, this money saving practice could be severely impacted in the near future. Continue reading →

Photo Credit: CNET

By Daniel Shickich

Just weeks after a jury handed Apple Inc. a billion dollar victory over rival Samsung Electronics Co. in a patent infringement suit, Samsung is heading back to court, asking that the verdict be dismissed due to juror misconduct. In a Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, New Trial and/or Remittitur Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50 and 59, filed on October 3, 2012, in United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division, Samsung alleges that jury foreman Velvin Hogan failed to disclose a lawsuit and his personal bankruptcy during voir dire, made public statements suggesting that he failed to answer the Court’s question truthfully to secure a seat on the jury panel, and provided other jurors with incorrect and extraneous legal standards during deliberations. Continue reading →

Photo Credit: Shaun Best — Reuters NewMedia, Inc./Corbis

By Jessica Belle

While most of the country is focused on the presidential election, another electoral battle wages in California over genetically engineered foods. This November, Californians will vote on whether to enact “The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act,” or “Proposition 37.” If the proposition passed, California would become the first state in America to regulate the labeling of genetically engineering foods. Recent efforts to petition the Food and Drug Administration to implement regulations similar to Proposition 37 have not been successful, and thus the issue may have to be resolved, if at all, at the state level instead of the federal level. Continue reading →