Court Orders Attorney to Cease Facebook® Criticism of Halal Fraud Settlement
A Michigan court has reportedly entered an order specifying what will appear
on the Facebook® page of the attorney who filed a complaint seeking to
set aside a settlement resolving claims that a McDonald’s Corp. franchisee
purported to sell halal chicken when some of the products were not prepared
according to Islamic law. Additional details about the settlement appear in
Issue 468 of this Update.
The court ordered Dearborn-based attorney Majed Moughi to remove any
criticism of the proposed settlement from the site, which is apparently
popular as a source of news in the Muslim community—drawing 20,000 views
each month, prominently post the settlement agreement itself, provide the
names of anyone who “liked” or supported the original post, and refrain from
discussing the settlement with anyone who might be affected or the media.
According to a news source, the Facebook® page has effectively become static
because any new posts or comments must be removed to keep the settlement
“front and center.”
Moughi apparently contended in the complaint, which the court has
dismissed, that the settlement fund should be distributed as cash awards
to those who purchased and consumed the allegedly non-halal products in
violation of their faith rather than be paid to a museum that is not connected
to Islam or to a clinic in a Detroit mosque that is not likely to be used by the
Dearborn residents who frequented the fast-food restaurant at issue in the litigation. Moughi reportedly referred to the settlement as a “backroom deal” on his Facebook® page and drew some 1,300 supporters.
The attorneys for the class and McDonald’s apparently sought the court’s orders to stop Moughi from making what they contended were false and defamatory statements about the settlement. The judge’s order has generated concerns among civil liberties groups that claim it is “clearly overbroad on its face and unconstitutional.” Others have evidently said that the order is sufficiently narrow and that the First Amendment does not protect the “right to deceive and mislead people about their rights under a class action settlement.” See USAToday, February 4, 2013; Detroit Free Press, ABA Journal and UPI, February 13, 2013.
