Judge allows Maine lobstermen's lawsuit over 'red listing' to advance

Yahoo

08-02-2025

Feb. 7—After almost two years in limbo, a federal judge ruled Friday that Maine lobstering groups can move forward with a lawsuit accusing a California aquarium of defamation.
The Maine Lobsterman's Association, the Maine Coast Fishermen's Association and three lobster businesses sued the Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation in 2023 after the organization's Seafood Watch program put lobster on a "red list" of food consumers should avoid.
The Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation argued that it has a right to make its rating based on Maine's free speech laws. But U.S. District of Maine Judge John Woodcock ruled disagreed.
"The injunctive relief requested does not seek to impose forward-looking restraints on public speech; rather, Plaintiffs merely seek the removal of statements determined to be defamatory," he wrote.
Seafood Watch downgraded the rating of Maine's most valuable catch in 2022 to address industry impacts on the endangered North Atlantic right whale. Seafood Watch had originally designated the fishery as "yellow," "a good alternative" to the red list.
Maine lobstermen have said that the red listing not only is false but also has caused significant economic harm to them and the Maine lobster brand.
Companies like Whole Foods, Hello Fresh and Blue Apron subsequently pulled Gulf of Maine lobster from their menus, following in line with Seafood Watch's allegations.
One plaintiff, Atwood Lobster, claims it lost a major purchaser due to the red listing. Bean Maine Lobster Inc., the Maine Lobstermen's Association and the Maine Coast Fishermen's Association each reported in the original filing losses in excess of $75,000.
"Disregard for fact-driven analysis and its arbitrary treatment of data to suit its false narrative demonstrate the falsity of its claims that 'scientific data' shows that Maine lobster fishing practices threaten ... right whales," the plaintiffs wrote, according to the ruling.
The Maine Lobstermen's Association wrote in a statement that the aquarium also has overlooked Maine lobstermen's care for marine life.
"This ruling is a crucial step in holding the Monterey Bay Aquarium accountable for misleading statements that have unfairly targeted our industry," Patrice McCarron, executive director of the MLA, wrote Friday evening. "Maine lobstermen have been stewards of the ocean for generations, and we are committed to defending our livelihood against baseless claims."
Woodcock wrote in his ruling that dismissing the suit before the courts determines the merits of the defamation claim and the resulting legal remedies.
The Monterey Bay Aquarium has stood by its right to issue the advisory. The aquarium added information in later filings about the death of a North Atlantic right whale in early 2024, which was found entangled in Maine fishing gear. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration determined it died from chronic entanglement caused by the Maine gear.
"This fact demonstrates the truth of (the aquarium's) statements that lobster fishing practices threaten the North Atlantic right whale," the aquarium has contended, according to the ruling.
Massachusetts lobstermen filed a similar suit shortly after the Seafood Watch advisory, making the same claims of economic harm and requesting $75,000 in damages.
The U.S. Northern District Court of California, where the aquarium was asking the courts to transfer the Maine suit, dismissed the Massachusetts claim after the two sides came to an agreement. Massachusetts lobstermen had concluded that "a win in the California court is highly unlikely and extremely costly," the Maine Lobstermen's Association said at the time.
The aquarium declined to comment on the ruling Friday night. It is still in the process of "reviewing it and assessing our next steps," a spokesperson said.
This ruling only addresses the request for dismissal. But it might provide some insight into how the lawsuit could land. Woodcock writes that the Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation has claimed the lobster advisory is based on "tentative scientific conclusions," but the watch list can easily be perceived as "conveying verifiable facts."
"MBAF cannot have it both ways," Woodcock wrote.
The case will now move on to discovery and proceedings, according to Kelley.
Copy the Story Link