Maine lobster defamation case smells fishy to First Circuit

(CN) — A defamation lawsuit brought by Maine lobster trade groups encountered choppy water after a First Circuit panel on Monday raised concerns over its impact.

In the 2023 suit, the state lobster industry accuses an aquarium’s seafood watchdog group of tanking the crustacean’s price by criticizing the environmental toll of the industry’s fishing nets and telling consumers not to buy it. A federal judge declined to dismiss the complaint last year, finding the Maine Lobstermen’s Association and other related plaintiffs had standing to sue the Monterey Bay Aquarium.

But the First Circuit appeared more skeptical of the case Monday, with one appellate judge noting it “really doesn’t feel like a defamation claim.”

“The more you broaden the class of people that fall within this, the more it feels like everybody can sue,” U.S. Circuit Judge Seth Aframe said. “That does trouble me from a First Amendment perspective.”

According to the trade groups, the price of lobster cratered by 40% after the aquarium’s watchdog Seafood Watch gave the shellfish a “red” environmental rating in 2022. The watchdog discouraged the purchase of lobster, claiming the nets used to catch it was having a devastating effect on the endangered North Atlantic right whales.

The trade groups say this was based on faulty information, however. They wrote in briefs that Maine lobster-fishing gear was responsible for only one right whale fatality in the past 22 years.

“Reputation and goodwill cannot be adequately replaced through awarding damages and this injury lingers as long as the ‘red listing’ does,” wrote U.S. District Judge John Woodcock, a George W. Bush in Maine, in his ruling last year advancing the libel claim.

The Monterey Bay Aquarium argued to the First Circuit that the lawsuit should have been dismissed on anti-SLAPP grounds. It additionally claims the First Amendment protects the publication of scientific opinions and that one can’t defame an entire industry — the plaintiffs represent a group of more than 5,600 lobstermen.

Aframe took issue with that scope.

“You have to be able to point to someone and say, ‘They’re talking about you,’” he said. “And if that is pointing at everyone, even though they all fall within it and I’m pointing at all of them, that’s not enough.”

Amy Saharia, representing the aquarium, agreed. She said the lobstermen never argued that there was “a particular reference to any of the plaintiffs.”

U.S. Circuit Judge Julie Rikelman added that, in the scrutinized statements, “there’s no photograph of the plaintiff.”

“There’s nothing, it’s just that the person’s a member of a group,” she said.

Defamation can apply to a group, but only if a group is small enough that a directed statement can target members specifically. Rikelman seemed hesitant that this is one of those cases.

“It seems like it may very well eliminate the group defamation rule altogether if it were enough to simply say, ‘I’m a member of the group,’” she said.

The case could have far-reaching effects on the scope of defamation claims and their potential impact on the First Amendment, so much so that a batch of news organizations — including The New York Times, ProPublica, USA Today and The Atlantic — entered the case as amici to back the aquarium.

“This libel suit raises serious concerns about the press’ ability to report news and analysis, including on complex policy topics, without the threat of crippling libel suits,” the publications wrote. “The undersigned newsrooms and media organizations submit this brief … because the district court’s analysis on two foundational issues of defamation law threatens to weaken key protections for journalists to do their jobs.”

The outlets were not heard at Monday’s oral arguments.

U.S. Circuit Judge Gustavo Gelpí rounded out the panel of Joe Biden appointees. They did not indicate when they would rule.

Follow @Uebey Follow @uebey.bsky.social