Beginning Next Week: InsideCounsel will become part of Corporate Counsel. Bringing these two industry-leading websites together will now give you comprehensive coverage of the full spectrum of issues affecting today's General Counsel at companies of all sizes. You will continue to receive expert analysis on key issues including corporate litigation, labor developments, tech initiatives and intellectual property, as well as Women, Influence & Power in Law (WIPL) professional development content. Plus we'll be serving all ALM legal publications from one interconnected platform, powered by, giving you easy access to additional relevant content from other InsideCounsel sister publications.

To prevent a disruption in service, you will be automatically redirected to the new site next week. Thank you for being a valued InsideCounsel reader!


ABC will face South Dakota court over ‘pink slime’ comments

Could face penalties of up to $1.2 billion for violation of Agricultural Food Products Disparagement Act

Maybe “slime” isn’t the most appetizing way to describe a food product, but it’s certainly easier to stomach than a potential $1.2 billion lawsuit. ABC News may soon be eating both its words and that price tag though, as a South Dakota based judge has rebuffed the broadcaster’s attempts to toss out a defamation lawsuit brought as a result of remarks it made about extruded meat products.

During a series of reports by ABC News in the spring of 2012, the signature product of Beef Products Inc. was repeatedly referred to as “pink slime.” According to BPI, the product, which is frequently used in fast food restaurants, is a finely ground and textured beef product. The company claims that repeated use of the term “pink slime” hurt its reputation by mischaracterizing an important offering as inedible.

The Department of Agriculture ruled that the product was safe for consumption, however many large retailers, including Wal-Mart, stopped selling items like hamburger patties that contained the product in the wake of the ABC reports.

While the judge has yet to determine whether defamation occurred, he has decided to allow a majority of the claims against ABC News to proceed. Previously ABC tried to get the suit into federal court, versus more meat-industry friendly South Dakota.

"The entirety of the broadcasts can be reasonably interpreted as insinuating that plaintiffs are improperly selling a product that is not nutritious and/or not safe for the public's consumption," the judge wrote. "For example, the use of the term 'pink slime' with a food product can be reasonably interpreted as implying that the food product is not meat and is not fit to eat, which are objective facts which can be proven."

"This was a ruling on a preliminary motion to dismiss, not a ruling on the merits.  We will defend our reporting vigorously on the merits," says Jeffrey W Schneider, senior vice president, ABC News.

BPI is seeking $400 million in projected profit lose, with the remainder coming from South Dakota's Agricultural Food Products Disparagement Act.

The news comes as multiple “ag-gag” laws seek to make it illegal to report on corruption and conditions within the meat industry.


For more on food industry lawsuits, check out these stories:

As lawsuits pile up, many big food companies scrap ‘all natural’ label

Starbucks to pay $2.79 billion over bagged coffee dispute

Chefs claim intellectual property damages for unattributed food porn pics




Executive Editor

author image

Chris DiMarco

Chris DiMarco, Executive Editor of InsideCounsel magazine, has a background in multimedia production with previous involvement in projects in which he developed and created content...

Bio and more articles

Join the Conversation

Advertisement. Closing in 15 seconds.