A Georgia court has dismissed with prejudice a complaint against television personality Mehmet Oz accusing the physician of making false claims about the quality of olive oil in the United States, finding that Oz’s statements were protected under a state anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) law protecting speech made in connection with an issue of public concern. N. Am. Olive Oil Assoc. v. Oz, No. 2016-283156, (Sup. Ct. Ga., Fulton Cty., order entered March 3, 2017.) The North American Olive Oil Association alleged that Oz and his guests made “false statements regarding the quality and purity” of olive oil sold in U.S. supermarkets. One of the guests was employed by olive oil producer California Olive Ranch, but the guest’s ties to the company were allegedly not disclosed on the show. The court said it had “grave concerns that the motivation for the present action falls directly within the purpose…
Tag Archives anti-SLAPP
A California appeals court has rejected a Napa restaurant’s attempt to circumvent the state’s foie gras ban by describing it as a gift for ordering another dish then arguing that a resulting suit brought by the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) seeking an injunction was merely a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) in violation of the state anti-SLAPP statute. Animal Legal Def. Fund v. LT Napa Partners LLC, No. A139615 (Cal. Ct. App., order entered March 5, 2015). Additional information on the foie gras ban, which a California federal court struck down in January 2015, appears in Issue 550 of this Update. Kenneth Frank, the head chef at Napa’s La Toque restaurant, was a vocal opponent of California’s foie gras ban; he testified at state senate hearings, participated in public debates and authored a newspaper opinion piece on the subject. On three occasions, ALDF sent an investigator to La Toque…
In an unpublished decision, a California appeals court has determined thatInnovation Ventures, LLC, the parent company which makes 5-Hour Energy®, may proceed with a malicious prosecution action against Howard Rubinstein and other consumer-fraud attorneys in connection with a putative class action filed against the company in 2010 on behalf of a woman, Vi Nguyen, whose claims about the product apparently changed during her deposition, leading to the suit’s voluntary dismissal with prejudice. Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Rubinstein, No. G046242 (Cal. Ct. App., 4th Dist., decided November 29, 2012) (unpublished). The court noted that the underlying consumer-fraud complaint referred in a number of places to the named plaintiff as “he” and that the named plaintiff did not believe she had ever seen the complaint or she would have corrected these references. She also apparently had never seen the attorneys of record “and had just met Rubinstein the day before her deposition.”…
A federal court in California has issued orders allowing certain claims to proceed in Lanham Act litigation brought by sugar producers against trade associations and companies that make high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). W. Sugar Coop. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., No. 11-3473 (C.D. Cal., orders entered October 21, 2011). The plaintiffs allege that an advertising campaign the defendants launched in 2008 to tell the public that “HFCS is corn sugar,” “HFCS is natural,” and “sugar is sugar” contains false representations about HFCS “that constitute false advertising under the Lanham Act and a violation of the California[] Unfair Business Practices Act.” The defendants filed a motion to dismiss contending that the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted. While the court agreed that the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim against individual trade association members, it found the pleadings sufficient to state a claim for false advertising…
A California court has reportedly ordered Dole Food Co. to pay about $200,000 in legal fees and costs to Swedish filmmakers whom the company sued for defamation, alleging that their documentary about the lawyer who sued Dole on behalf of Nicaraguan banana plantation workers exposed to the pesticide DBCP implied that the company caused their deaths. Dole Food Co. v. Gertten, No. __ (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., decided November 17, 2010). The filmmakers filed a motion to strike the lawsuit after it was filed in July 2009 on the ground that it constituted a “strategic lawsuit against public participation,” or SLAPP, which is prohibited by state law. Although Dole apparently dismissed its lawsuit voluntarily thereafter, “[t]he potential distributors were concerned because Dole had only dismissed without prejudice. They had the right to re-file the action,” according to the filmmakers’ counsel. While the film has been distributed in 15…
A corporate watchdog organization, Corporations and Health Watch, has issued a call for food industry critics who have been threatened with litigation for saying “anything critical about food,” to submit information about their experience to the organization. According to the group, corporations are using the food disparagement laws now in effect in 13 states “as leverage to silence their critics, frequently sending threatening letter[s] to those who speak out or those who publish [their critiques], threatening to sue under these menacing laws.”
