Auvil v. CBS '60 Minutes'

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
67 F.3d 816 (1995)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

To succeed on a product disparagement claim, a plaintiff must prove the falsity of the specific, challenged statements made by the defendant. A claim cannot survive summary judgment by arguing that the 'overall message' or implication of a publication was false if the underlying factual statements themselves are not provably false.

Facts:

Daminozide, a chemical growth regulator with the trade name Alar, was sprayed on apples.
Scientific research based on animal studies indicated that daminozide breaks down into UDMH, a carcinogen, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had classified it as a 'probable human carcinogen.'
On February 26, 1989, the CBS television show '60 Minutes' aired a broadcast segment entitled "'A' is for Apple."
The broadcast was based largely on a report by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) which outlined health risks, particularly to children, associated with pesticides on fruit.
The broadcast opened with a statement that 'the most potent cancer-causing agent in our food supply is a substance sprayed on apples.'
The segment featured interviews with an EPA administrator, scientists, and others who discussed findings that Alar posed a significant cancer risk, especially for children who consume more apple products per unit of body weight.
Following the broadcast, consumer demand for apples and apple products decreased dramatically, causing Washington State apple growers, including Grady Auvil, to lose millions of dollars.

Procedural Posture:

Grady Auvil and other Washington State apple growers filed a complaint for product disparagement against CBS in Washington State Superior Court.
CBS removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington based on diversity jurisdiction.
The district court denied the growers' motion to remand the case back to state court.
After discovery limited to the issue of falsity, CBS moved for summary judgment.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of CBS, holding that the growers failed to produce evidence sufficient to create a triable issue of fact as to the broadcast's falsity.
The growers, as plaintiffs-appellants, appealed the district court's summary judgment ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a product disparagement claim fail at the summary judgment stage if the plaintiffs cannot produce sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact that the defendant's specific statements were false, even if the plaintiffs argue the broadcast's overall implied message was false?

Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

Yes. A product disparagement claim fails if the plaintiff cannot raise a genuine issue of material fact as to the falsity of the specific statements at issue. Under Washington law, which follows the Restatement (Second) of Torts, a plaintiff must prove the falsity of the disparaging statements themselves, not a perceived 'overall message.' The growers failed to meet this burden because their evidence—that no studies had been conducted on the effects of daminozide on humans—was insufficient to disprove the broadcast's claims, which were based on animal studies, a legitimate means for assessing cancer risks to humans. The court rejected the growers' argument to analyze an 'implied message,' reasoning that such an approach is inconsistent with Washington law which holds that defamatory meaning must be apparent from the words themselves and cannot be extended by innuendo. Allowing claims based on an implied message would create uncertainty for broadcasters and have a chilling effect on speech.

Analysis:

This decision solidifies a high burden of proof for plaintiffs in product disparagement cases, particularly against media defendants reporting on public health and scientific issues. It establishes that plaintiffs cannot circumvent the core requirement of proving factual falsity by arguing about the publication's broader 'gist' or 'implied message.' This protects journalism by requiring plaintiffs to directly challenge the underlying facts of a report, rather than its tone or the audience's interpretation. The ruling reinforces that truth, or at least the absence of provable falsity in specific statements, is a powerful defense against trade libel claims.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Auvil v. CBS '60 Minutes' (1995)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature