A Watchdog Group Told People to Not Buy Maine Lobster. Now It's Facing a Lawsuit.
A federal judge recently ruled that the Maine Lobstermen's Association and others can proceed with their defamation suit against the nonprofit Seafood Watch, The New York Times reported on Monday. The lobstermen's group initially sued the nonprofit, which is run by the Monterey Bay Aquarium, almost two years ago, following Seafood Watch's downgrading of Maine lobster from yellow to red in its sustainability ratings.
More from Robb Report
The Couple Behind N.Y.C.'s Hit Restaurants Dame and Lord's Opens a New Seafood Spot
This Beloved N.Y.C. Restaurant Is Reportedly Being Forced Out to Make Room for Prada
Chef Michael White Returns to N.Y.C. With a New Modern Italian Restaurant
'This ruling is a crucial step in holding the Monterey Bay Aquarium accountable for misleading statements that have unfairly targeted our industry,' Patrice McCarron, the executive director of the Maine Lobstermen's Association, said in a statement. 'Maine lobstermen have been stewards of the ocean for generations, and we are committed to defending our livelihood against baseless claims.'
Back in 2022, Seafood Watch changed the sustainability rating for American lobsters caught off Maine, telling consumers that they should no longer buy the crustaceans, the Times noted. At the time, the nonprofit said that the fishing gear used to catch lobsters was posing a threat to endangered North Atlantic right whales. Around the same time, the Marine Stewardship Council similarly announced that it was no longer considering Maine lobster sustainable because of those fishing-gear issues.
However, the fishermen suing Seafood Watch say that the group's rating was based on irrelevant and outdated data, and that the industry has worked to modify its gear, The New York Times wrote. They also say that the rating downgrade led some customers to cancel their contracts and the average price of a pound of lobster to fall 40 percent.
'Reputation and goodwill cannot be adequately replaced through awarding damages and this injury lingers as long as the 'red listing' does,' Judge John A. Woodcock Jr. wrote in his decision.
In response to Woodcock Jr.'s ruling, Seafood Watch has filed an appeal, the Times reported. The Monterey Bay Aquarium said in a statement cited by the newspaper that the lawsuit should be dismissed according to a Maine law meant to protect free speech.
For now, though, the Maine Lobstermen's Association will proceed with its fight against Seafood Watch, in the hopes that the nonprofit will amend its rating of Maine lobster. As we gear up for the summer season, lobster-roll lovers will likely be watching closely to see how the rest of the case plays out.
Best of Robb Report
Why a Heritage Turkey Is the Best Thanksgiving Bird—and How to Get One
9 Stellar West Coast Pinot Noirs to Drink Right Now
The 10 Best Wines to Pair With Steak, From Cabernet to Malbec
Click here to read the full article.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
17 minutes ago
- The Hill
Senate Democrats urge Trump to walk back Nvidia, AMD deal
Several top Senate Democrats are urging President Trump to walk back a deal with Nvidia and AMD that would allow the companies to sell artificial intelligence (AI) chips to China after they agreed to share 15 percent of revenue from sales. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sens. Mark Warner (D-Va.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) argued in a letter sent Friday that the move runs counter to U.S. national security interests and could violate the law. Warner is the vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, while Reed, Shaheen and Warren are the top Democrats on the Senate Armed Services, Foreign Relations and Banking panels, respectively. 'This 'negotiated deal,' allowing American semiconductor manufacturers to pay a 15 percent fee for the ability to sell critically sensitive technology to our adversary, blatantly violates the purpose of export control laws,' they wrote. Nvidia and AMD have each agreed to share 15 percent of revenue from the sales of their H20 and MI308 chips in order to secure export licenses from the Trump administration, which had imposed new licensing restrictions effectively blocking sales earlier this year. The deal has raised legal questions, as federal law prohibits fees on export licenses, while the Constitution bars export taxes. However, it's unclear whether the agreement would be considered a formal fee or tax and whether anyone would challenge the move. It has also provoked national security concerns, as the U.S. seeks to outpace China on AI and prevent Beijing from using the technology to boost its military capabilities. 'Our national security and military readiness relies upon American innovators inventing and producing the best technology in the world, and in maintaining that qualitative advantage in sensitive domains,' the senators said. 'The United States has historically been successful in maintaining and building that advantage because of, in part, our ability to deny adversaries access to those technologies.' 'The willingness displayed in this arrangement to 'negotiate' away America's competitive edge that is key to our national security in exchange for what is, in effect, a commission on a sale of AI-enabling technology to our main global competitor, is cause for serious alarm,' they added. The Democratic lawmakers pressed Trump for information about who participated in the negotiations, what legal standards were applied, how the 15 percent will be determined and collected, what the funds will be used for and what other companies are under consideration for such a deal. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt suggested last week that the administration could pursue similar agreements in the future, even as the legality and mechanics of the Nvidia and AMD deal are 'still being ironed out' by the Commerce Department. 'Right now, it stands with these two companies. Perhaps it could expand in the future to other companies,' she said. 'I think it's a creative idea and solution.'
Newsweek
18 minutes ago
- Newsweek
The Real Trade Emergency—Why the Business Community Must Lead Again
U.S. trade policy is adrift—not for lack of activity, but for lack of leadership coordination and vision. The recent use of emergency authorities like the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs reflects a broader challenge. It's not just about policy complexity in an uncertain global economy; it's also about the absence of strong, unified input from the American business community. For decades, U.S. companies helped shape an open, rules-based trading system. Today, that collective voice is missing, and the consequences are mounting. American businesses once led boldly on trade. They were instrumental in building a global system that expanded prosperity, lifted millions out of poverty, and cemented U.S. economic leadership. Organizations like the Emergency Committee for American Trade (ECAT), founded in 1967 by executives from IBM, Ford, John Deere, and Chase Manhattan Bank, stood at the center of that effort. These leaders understood that trade policy wasn't just a Washington exercise; it was a business imperative. President Donald Trump answers questions from reporters in the Oval Office on Aug. 14, 2025, in Washington, D.C. President Donald Trump answers questions from reporters in the Oval Office on Aug. 14, 2025, in Washington, when ECAT closed its doors in 2018, it signaled, perhaps prematurely, that business had declared victory on trade. What followed was fragmentation: sector-by-sector advocacy, each focused on its own narrow interests. Now, the tech industry lobbies for digital priorities. Agriculture and food companies navigate their own trade challenges. Financial firms carve out separate agendas. Branded consumer companies defend their global reputations. But few speak with a unified voice about the broader U.S. trade strategy or the need for one. A siloed approach has weakened America's global negotiating position and eroded public support for open markets. The result? Incoherent policies, rising costs, and missed opportunities. While large multinationals can often absorb or shift the impact of tariffs, smaller businesses and households are less fortunate. Trade policy built on ad hoc decisions and political expediency doesn't deliver for the broader economy. Greg Page, former chairman and CEO of Cargill, once said in a meeting with government officials while we were advocating on the Transpacific Partnership in Washington, DC: "When it's every company and every country for itself, the poor suffer most." Greg's warning rings louder today. The erosion of collaborative business leadership on trade isn't just an economic issue; it's a moral and strategic one. Trade has always been about more than market access. It's about building bridges, deepening alliances, and strengthening the backbone of democracy through shared prosperity. In the absence of business leadership, policy risks becoming reactive and politicized. Consider this: America's own revolution was sparked in part by opposition to unfair tariffs. Advocating for modern trade liberalization isn't anti-American; it's deeply in line with the nation's founding ideals. Eliminating harmful trade barriers and investing in rules-based trade enhances our independence and global standing. Meanwhile, other nations aren't standing still. The European Union, China, and regional blocs across Asia and Africa are forging new trade agreements, shaping global standards without U.S. leadership at the table. As others write the rules of tomorrow's economy, America risks becoming a rule-taker, not a rule-maker. To reverse this drift, the business community must once again act as a strategic stakeholder; not just a special interest. CEOs must move beyond zero-sum thinking and reassert themselves as advocates of a coherent, forward-looking trade agenda. It means reengaging in Washington not simply to protect their own sectors, but to help shape a national strategy that benefits the full economy to include workers, consumers, and companies alike. Trade isn't just about exports and deficits. It's about values. It's about whether the U.S. will lead a world built on cooperation and fair competition, or retreat into fragmented, transactional relationships that benefit the few at the expense of the many. The real emergency in trade today isn't the deficit. It's the dangerous silence of the private sector. If U.S. businesses want a stable, predictable, and open global economy, they must help rebuild it. That begins with speaking out—not as isolated sectors, but as one business community, united by the shared understanding that long-term prosperity requires open markets, strong institutions, and principled leadership. It's not too late—but it's later than we think. Devry Boughner Vorwerk is CEO of DevryBVSustainable Strategies and former corporate vice president of global corporate affairs at Cargill and head of corporate affairs at Grubhub. She has more than 25 years of experience in international trade, including roles at the U.S. International Trade Commission, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the World Bank, and Akin Gump. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Business Insider
18 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Trump releases new rules to limit a major student-loan forgiveness program for public servants
Student-loan forgiveness for public servants is on the line. President Donald Trump's administration published its new rules to narrow eligibility for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program on Monday. The public comment period — during which anyone can submit comments on the new regulations to the administration — is officially open through September 17. PSLF, which is intended to forgive student debt for government and nonprofit workers after 10 years of qualifying payments, has allowed for the discharge of over a billion dollars in student debt for public servants. Trump is seeking to alter the program — he signed an executive order in March asking the education secretary to redefine what "public service" means to remove PSLF eligibility for employers engaging in "anti-American" activities. The proposed rule to limit PSLF, published in the Federal Register, said that "in cases where an employer is deemed to have engaged in activities that breach federal or state law or established public policy, affected borrowers would no longer receive credit toward loan forgiveness for months worked after the effective date of ineligibility." "While this may delay or prevent forgiveness for a subset of borrowers, the overall design of the regulations—including advance notice, transparency around determinations, and employer recertification pathways—helps mitigate unexpected harm," the rule said. Compromising behavior by an employer, according to the rule, could include violation of the federal disabilities act; violation of federal immigration law; what the department characterizes as "chemical castration or mutilation," like the use of puberty blockers or hormones to help a transgender person transition; and acts of terrorism. The Department of Education held negotiation sessions with stakeholders in early July, and some members of the committee expressed concerns with the department's intent to limit the program. Please help BI improve our Business, Tech, and Innovation coverage by sharing a bit about your role — it will help us tailor content that matters most to people like you. What is your job title? (1 of 2) Entry level position Project manager Management Senior management Executive management Student Self-employed Retired Other Continue By providing this information, you agree that Business Insider may use this data to improve your site experience and for targeted advertising. By continuing you agree that you accept the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy . "The intent of Congress was not to narrow the eligibility," Betsy Mayotte, the president of The Institute of Student Loan Advisors and a representative of student-loan borrowers, said during a session. "It was to make it as expansive as possible under the statute that they wrote." Representatives of the administration argued that the education secretary has the authority to interpret regulations and statutes and can legally refine PSLF. Student-loan borrowers enrolled in PSLF previously told Business Insider that Trump's plans to change a program they rely on for debt relief are a major concern. "I'm so close to the finish line," Jeff Hughes, a government employee with student debt, said. "I really hope that the program continues as is because we need some more good people out there doing good work." Undersecretary of Education Nicholas Kent said in a statement that "the federal government has a vital interest in deterring unlawful conduct, and we're moving quickly to ensure employers don't benefit while breaking the law."
