ABC’s news anchor Diane Sawyer, two correspondents and others may soon find themselves deposed in a defamation lawsuit brought by a company that was the focus of a 2012 ABC News exposé of chemically-produced “lean finely textured beef” sold in the United States.
Last week the South Dakota Supreme Court allowed a $1.2 billion defamation lawsuit filed by South Dakota-based Beef Products Inc. to proceed. In allowing it to proceed, the court denied the petition filed by ABC and other defendants — including a U.S. Department of Agriculture microbiologist, a former federal food scientist and a former quality assurance manager for Beef Products Inc. — which asked the court to review the case and largely dismiss it.
Beef Products Inc., or BPI, filed the lawsuit against the network in 2012 after ABC News aired its investigation into a product produced by the company that critics have dubbed “pink slime.” BPI claims the network’s story was in violation of both common defamation law and South Dakota’s specific Agricultural Foods Products Disparagement Act.
Specifically, BPI argues that the network’s coverage of the food additive cleaned with ammonia gas caused so much public concern about the product’s safety that beef products potentially containing the product were pulled from grocery stores, fast food restaurants and school cafeterias. In light of this, the company says it had no choice but to close three of its four plants and lay off roughly 700 people.
The high court’s decision echoes the decision made by South Dakota Union County Judge Cheryle Gering in March. Gering allowed the suit to proceed, but she did agree to drop some claims against the defendants.
As part of the court’s latest decision to allow the case to proceed, the high court lifted a stay that was first issued in April. The stay prevented attorneys on both sides of the case from beginning the discovery process, which includes gathering depositions.
Attorneys for ABC have argued that in each news broadcast, the network cited the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration’s evaluations that the industrial beef byproduct is safe for human consumption. The network has also argued that although BPI probably didn’t like the use of the term “pink slime,” the term was perfectly acceptable because beef is pink and has a slimy texture.
Since news of the court’s decision was made public, ABC News has not responded to any media requests for comment, nor has the network released a statement. However, Erik Connolly, an attorney for BPI, said he was pleased with the court’s decision, adding, “We look forward to starting discovery.”
When the lawsuit was originally filed against ABC about two years ago, attorneys for the network responded to the accusations in court filings, saying that in each broadcast, the network stated the FDA has deemed the product safe to eat. It further argued that this case was not only about pink slime, but also about the freedom of the press to expose the truth.
“More is at stake here than the mere expense of litigation,” ABC attorney Kevin Baine said in court earlier this March. “What is at stake is the freedom of a news organization and individual citizens to report on matters of public interest without the fear of being subjected to the uncertainty, burden and risk of litigation.”
However, BPI argues that ABC continuously referred to the product as filler or “not meat,” and intentionally tried to damage the beef company’s reputation, since no other meat producer that used the product was mentioned. Lawyers for BPI say this was evidenced in the news reports, as the journalists would mention the USDA’s decision to classify the product as a safe substance for consumption, while simultaneously hinting to viewers that the USDA was not to be trusted in its decision regarding the product’s safety.
In response, ABC says it never quoted someone as saying the product isn’t safe and that BPI doesn’t get to choose which terms are used in any news broadcast. However, Gering sided with BPI, saying that “ABC isn’t protected against liability by saying in its news reports that the product is beef, is safe and is nutritious.”
According to legal scholar Professor Jonathan Turley, while ABC’s use of the term “pink slime” reveals more of an opinion than the network may want to admit, BPI’s decision to target ABC raises serious questions about the freedom of the press.
While Turley sees the issue BPI has with the piece, he doesn’t feel the lawsuit is viable, since there were no false statements in the news piece.
“While I can understand the view of the state Supreme Court that it must defer to factual findings of the trial court and generally interlocutory appeals are disfavored, the trial court decision is highly dismissive of the core free press and free speech implications of the ruling,” he wrote on his blog.
“While well-researched and detailed, the court brushes over the opinion aspects of some of these statements and dismissed statements to the effect that there is no evidence that the product is unhealthy.”
MintPress News contacted BPI to ask if its $1.2 billion claim includes attorney fees and other legal costs. The company had not responded as of the time of writing.