Auvil v. CBS "60 Minutes"
1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9455, 800 F. Supp. 928, 20 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1361 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The 'group libel' doctrine from defamation law, which often bars claims by large, unidentified groups, does not necessarily apply to a product disparagement claim where a publication targets an entire, fungible product category, thereby causing pecuniary harm to all of its producers.
Facts:
- The chemical daminozide, known by the tradename Alar, was a growth regulator used by some apple growers to improve the fruit's cosmetic appearance and storage life.
- The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) published a report concluding that Alar degrades into UDMH, a carcinogen, posing a particular risk to children who are large consumers of apple products.
- On February 26, 1989, the CBS television program “60 Minutes” aired a segment based on the NRDC report, which was highly critical of Alar's use on apples.
- The broadcast featured visuals of red apples and stated that consumers could not distinguish between apples treated with Alar and those that were not, describing the situation as 'supermarket roulette'.
- Washington State is commonly known as the prime producer of red apples due to aggressive marketing by the Washington State Apple Advertising Commission.
- Following the broadcast, public demand for apples and apple products plummeted, causing Washington apple growers to suffer severe financial losses, including bankruptcies and decreased property values.
Procedural Posture:
- A class of 4,700 Washington apple growers filed a class action lawsuit in Yakima County Superior Court, a state trial court.
- The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, a federal trial court, based on diversity jurisdiction.
- The plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case back to state court, arguing that the presence of local, in-state affiliate stations as defendants defeated diversity jurisdiction.
- The defendants filed motions to dismiss the case, or in the alternative, for summary judgment.
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 the 'group libel' doctrine, which bars defamation claims by individual members of a large, unidentified group, also bar a product disparagement claim when a broadcast targets an entire product category (like all red apples), thereby implicating all producers of that product?
Opinions:
Majority - Wm. Fremming Nielsen
No, the 'group libel' doctrine does not bar a product disparagement claim where a broadcast disparages an entire product category, thereby implicating all of its producers. Product disparagement and personal defamation are distinct torts; the former protects pecuniary interests, while the latter protects personal reputation. The rationales for the group libel rule in defamation cases—dilution of harm and lack of individual identification—do not apply with the same force to product disparagement. When an entire product category is targeted, the pecuniary injury is not diluted among the group of producers but is instead distributed, with the aggregate loss remaining the same regardless of the number of producers. Furthermore, the identification element is met because the broadcast was 'of and concerning' all apples, whether treated or not, by rendering the entire product category suspect in the eyes of the consumer. Therefore, the plaintiff growers have standing to pursue their claim, although they must still prove the broadcast's statements were false and made with malice.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for distinguishing product disparagement from personal defamation in the context of group claims. It prevents media defendants from using the group libel doctrine as a shield when making sweeping negative claims about an entire product category. The ruling establishes that producers of a generic, fungible product can collectively sue for disparagement if a publication harms the market for that product as a whole, even if no individual producer is named. This precedent expands potential liability for media organizations and protects the economic interests of entire industries against generalized, damaging reports.
Unlock the full brief for Auvil v. CBS "60 Minutes"