Judge pauses Maine lobster defamation suit pending appeal
U.S. District Judge John Woodcock had ruled in February that the suit — brought by the Maine Lobstermen's Association, the Maine Coast Fishermen's Association and a handful of lobstering businesses — could proceed after nearly two years in legal limbo.
The groups sued the Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation "for making false and defamatory statements about Maine lobster fishing practices and for misleading consumers and commercial lobster buyers about the integrity of the Maine lobster harvest" after the aquarium's Seafood Watch program downgraded its rating for Maine lobster. The aquarium claimed that the lobster industry threatens the North Atlantic right whale, and that U.S. and Canadian regulations failed to adequately protect the critically endangered species.
But in a new ruling Tuesday, Woodcock placed a stay on the case while the 1st U.S. Circuit of Appeals in Boston takes up questions regarding the proper interpretation of group libel issues and whether the aquarium's decision to place Maine lobster on a list of foods to avoid constitutes a protected scientific opinion.
Woodcock also granted an interlocutory appeal, a relatively rare legal device used in situations where questions arise that are unrelated to the merits of the case itself, including "a controlling question of law" with substantial grounds for a difference in opinion that could "materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation," according to federal law.
The interlocutory appeal is focused on two points the aquarium raised in February.
First, whether an exception to the group libel law should be granted in this case. The court in February ruled that the case could be exempted from the state's traditional rules on libel of a broad group, as the plaintiffs were able to demonstrate that they were uniquely impacted by the sweeping declaration on Maine lobster.
Before the proceedings can resume, the appeals court must determine whether that exception "applies to defamation claims brought by a plaintiff group consisting of lobstermen who each suffered similar demonstrable economic harms as a consequence of defamatory statements made against the American lobster as a commercial product," Woodcock wrote.
Second, the appeals court must determine whether the aquarium's claims about the lobster industry are protected as a matter of differing scientific opinion.
In their complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the aquarium's "scientific assertion is factually false and the speaker deliberately ignored and did not disclose the existence of contradictory evidence of which it was aware at the time it made the statements," Woodcock wrote.
Depending on its findings, the appeals court could send the case back to the lower court for renewed deliberation, move to dismiss the complaint or otherwise terminate the proceedings.
A spokesperson for the aquarium said it "appreciates the District Court's decision" to grant the appeal and stay proceedings.
"We seek to protect our ability to share critical information with the public and welcome the opportunity the decision presents," the spokesperson said in a statement emailed Tuesday.
Kevin Lipson, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs, said they would brief the issues before the 1st Circuit "as it's deemed necessary," but he noted that the court could decline to take up the question of group libel applicability.
"We're very confident in the trial judge's determination below, and we are confident that we'll prevail in the 1st Circuit," Lispon said on Tuesday. "This is the nature of the judicial process. It is a cumbersome and tiresome thing, but at the end justice will prevail."
In a brief filed last month, the New England First Amendment Coalition argued that siding with the plaintiffs would be an "unprecedented application of the group libel rule" and threaten news reporting. Doing so could also create a chilling effect related to scientific and public policy debate, the coalition said.
Copy the Story Link
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
21 minutes ago
Air Canada suspends restart plans after union defies return to work order
TORONTO -- TORONTO (AP) — Air Canada said it suspended plans to restart operations on Sunday after the union representing 10,000 flight attendants said it will defy a return to work order. The strike was already affecting about 130,000 travelers around the world per day during the peak summer travel season. The Canada Industrial Relations Board ordered airline staff back to work by 2 p.m. Sunday after the government intervened and Air Canada said it planned to resume flights Sunday evening. Canada's largest airline now says it will resume flights Monday evening. Air Canada said in a statement that the union 'illegally directed its flight attendant members to defy a direction from the Canadian Industrial Relations Board.' 'Our members are not going back to work,' Canadian Union of Public Employees national president Mark Hancock said outside Toronto's Pearson International Airport. 'We are saying no.' Hancock ripped up a copy of the back-to-work order outside the airport's departures terminal where union members were picketing Sunday morning. He said they won't return Tuesday either. Flight attendants chanted 'Don't blame me, blame AC' outside Pearson. 'Like many Canadians, the Minister is monitoring this situation closely. The Canada Industrial Relations Board is an independent tribunal," Jennifer Kozelj, a spokeswoman for Federal Jobs Minister Patty Hajdu said in a emailed statement. Hancock said the 'whole process has been unfair' and said the union will challenge what it called an unconstitutional order. Less than 12 hours after workers walked off the job,)Hajdu ordered the 10,000 flight attendants back to work, saying now is not the time to take risks with the economy and noting the unprecedented tariffs the U.S. has imposed on Canada. Hajdu referred the work stoppage to the Canada Industrial Relations Board. The airline said the CIRB has extended the term of the existing collective agreement until a new one is determined by the arbitrator. The shutdown of Canada's largest airline early Saturday was impacting about 130,000 people a day. Air Canada operates around 700 flights per day. Tourist Mel Durston from southern England was trying to make the most of sightseeing in Canada. But she said she doesn't have a way to continue her journey. 'We wanted to go see the Rockies, but we might not get there because of this,' Durston said. 'We might have to head straight back." James Hart and Zahara Virani were visiting Toronto from Calgary, Alberta for what they thought would be a fun weekend. But they ended up paying $2,600 Canadian ($1,880) to fly with another airline on a later day after their Air Canada flight got canceled. 'It's a little frustrating and stressful, but at the same time, I don't blame the flight attendants at all,' Virani said. 'What they're asking for is not unreasonable whatsoever." Flight attendants walked off the job around 1 a.m. EDT on Saturday. Around the same time, Air Canada said it would begin locking flight attendants out of airports. The bitter contract fight escalated Friday as the union turned down Air Canada's prior request to enter into government-directed arbitration, which allows a third-party mediator to decide the terms of a new contract. Last year, the government forced the country's two major railroads into arbitration with their labor union during a work stoppage. The union for the rail workers is suing, arguing the government is removing a union's leverage in negotiations. Hajdu maintained that her Liberal government is not anti-union, saying it is clear the two sides are at an impasse. Passengers whose flights are impacted will be eligible to request a full refund on the airline's website or mobile app, according to Air Canada. The airline said it would also offer alternative travel options through other Canadian and foreign airlines when possible. Still, it warned that it could not guarantee immediate rebooking because flights on other airlines are already full 'due to the summer travel peak.' Air Canada and CUPE have been in contract talks for about eight months, but they have yet to reach a tentative deal. Both sides have said they remain far apart on the issue of pay and the unpaid work flight attendants do when planes aren't in the air. The airline's latest offer included a 38% increase in total compensation, including benefits and pensions, over four years, that it said 'would have made our flight attendants the best compensated in Canada.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Marshalls' (LON:MSLH) Strong Earnings Are Of Good Quality
Explore Marshalls's Fair Values from the Community and select yours Investors were underwhelmed by the solid earnings posted by Marshalls plc (LON:MSLH) recently. We have done some analysis and have found some comforting factors beneath the profit numbers. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. The Impact Of Unusual Items On Profit For anyone who wants to understand Marshalls' profit beyond the statutory numbers, it's important to note that during the last twelve months statutory profit was reduced by UK£5.2m due to unusual items. While deductions due to unusual items are disappointing in the first instance, there is a silver lining. We looked at thousands of listed companies and found that unusual items are very often one-off in nature. And, after all, that's exactly what the accounting terminology implies. If Marshalls doesn't see those unusual expenses repeat, then all else being equal we'd expect its profit to increase over the coming year. That might leave you wondering what analysts are forecasting in terms of future profitability. Luckily, you can click here to see an interactive graph depicting future profitability, based on their estimates. Our Take On Marshalls' Profit Performance Unusual items (expenses) detracted from Marshalls' earnings over the last year, but we might see an improvement next year. Based on this observation, we consider it likely that Marshalls' statutory profit actually understates its earnings potential! And the EPS is up 10% over the last twelve months. The goal of this article has been to assess how well we can rely on the statutory earnings to reflect the company's potential, but there is plenty more to consider. With this in mind, we wouldn't consider investing in a stock unless we had a thorough understanding of the risks. You'd be interested to know, that we found 1 warning sign for Marshalls and you'll want to know about this. Today we've zoomed in on a single data point to better understand the nature of Marshalls' profit. But there are plenty of other ways to inform your opinion of a company. For example, many people consider a high return on equity as an indication of favorable business economics, while others like to 'follow the money' and search out stocks that insiders are buying. While it might take a little research on your behalf, you may find this free collection of companies boasting high return on equity, or this list of stocks with significant insider holdings to be useful. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
New York Times
2 hours ago
- New York Times
Trump's Plans for A.I. Might Hit a Wall. Thank Europe.
President Trump wants to unleash American A.I. companies on the world. For the United States to win the unfolding A.I. arms race, his logic goes, tech companies should be unfettered by regulations and free to develop artificial intelligence technology as they generally see fit. He is convinced that the benefits of American supremacy in this technology outweigh the risks of ungoverned A.I., which experts warn could include heightened surveillance, disinformation or even an existential threat to humanity. This conviction is at the heart of the administration's recently unveiled A.I. Action Plan, which looks to roll back red tape and onerous regulations that it says paralyze A.I. development. But Mr. Trump can't single-handedly protect American A.I. companies from regulation. Washington may be able to eliminate the rules of the road at home, but it can't do so for the rest of the world. If American companies want to operate in international markets, they must follow the rules of those markets. That means that the European Union, an enormous market that is committed to regulating A.I., could well thwart Mr. Trump's techno-optimist vision of a world dominated by self-regulated, free-market U.S. companies. In the past, the E.U.'s digital regulations have resonated well beyond the continent, with technology companies extending those rules across their global operations in a phenomenon I have termed the Brussels Effect. Companies like Apple and Microsoft now broadly use the E.U.'s General Data Protection Regulation, which gives users more control over their data, as their global privacy standard in part because it is too costly and cumbersome for them to follow different privacy policies in each market. Other governments also often look to E.U. rules when drafting their own laws regulating the tech sector. The same phenomenon could at least partly hold for A.I. technology. Over the past decade, the E.U. has put in place a number of regulations aimed at balancing A.I. innovation, transparency and accountability. Most important is the A.I. Act, the world's first comprehensive and binding artificial intelligence law, which entered into force in August 2024. The act establishes guardrails against the possible risks of artificial intelligence, such as the loss of privacy, discrimination, disinformation and A.I. systems that could endanger human life if left unchecked. This law, for instance, restricts the use of facial recognition technology for surveillance and limits the use of potentially biased artificial intelligence for hiring or credit decisions. American developers looking to get access to the European market will have to comply with these rules and others. Some companies are already pushing back. Meta has accused the E.U. of overreach and even sought the Trump administration's help in opposing Europe's regulatory ambitions. But other companies, such as OpenAI, Google and Microsoft, are signing on to Europe's A.I. code of practice. These tech giants see an opportunity: Playing nice with the European Union could help build trust among users, pre-empt other regulatory challenges and streamline their policies around the world. Individual American states looking to govern A.I., too, could use E.U. rules as a template when writing their own bills, as California did when developing its privacy laws. By holding its ground, Europe can steer global A.I. development toward models that protect fundamental rights, ensure fairness and don't undermine democracy. Standing firm would also boost Europe's tech sector by creating fairer competition between foreign and European A.I. firms, which have to abide by E.U. laws. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
