2
I. Introduction
Defamation in the form of slander or libel can occur in a variety of way, one of which is
via television on the news or in other television programming. However, not all television
broadcasts suffice to constitute an actionable tort for defamation. For example, when CBS aired
an episode of its program 60-Minutes discussing a report published by the Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC) discussing the detrimental effects of pesticide use by farmers and
particularly focusing on Alar (an herbicide apple growers use to improve apple growth and
appearance), some customers responded to such broadcast by boycotting apples and apple
products, but did such broadcast give the apple growers a viable cause of action for defamation
against CBS and the NRDC? The answer to this question is presented herein.
II. Do the apple growers have a viable cause of action for defamation against CBS
and the NRDC?
The apple growers do not have a viable cause of action for defamation against CBS or the
NRDC. The reasons for such follow.
Defamation is defined as “an invasion of the reputation of a person or group resulting
from libel or slander” (Edwards, 2016, §13-1). Defamation is generally defined as “the
unprivileged publication of false statements which naturally and proximately result in injury to
another.” Wardak v. Goolden, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91816, *29 (S.D. Fla. 2020). Libel occurs
when a false statement is published (when it is communicated to others via television,
newspaper, billboard, or some other medium) and such is “seen or heard by someone other than
the plaintiff” (Edwards, 2016, §13-2), while slander occurs when a person makes an oral
statement (Edwards, 2016, §13-1). Trade libel occurs when defamation is done in reference to
goods or business (Edwards, 2016, §13-6a). Whether defamation involves slander, libel, or trade
libel, a key element required to prove a defamation claim is that the statements made were false
3
(Edwards, 2016, §13-2). In this regard, God also prohibits defamation, slander, libel, and trade
libel because God commands “[y]ou shall not spread a false report” (Berean Standard Bible,
2016/2020, Exodus 23:1), and defamation, slander, libel, and trade libel each involve spreading
false information that harms others in their reputation or business.
The 60-Minutes television program involves CBS producers making a written script that
the hosts or commentators then read from to the audience, and such is considered published for
the purposes of establishing the libel form of defamation (Edwards, 2016, §13-1). The statements
made on such program pertained to the apple growers’ goods and business, and as such any
defamation involved would constitute trade libel. To make a valid claim for trade libel, the apple
growers must establish that CBS published a false statement that caused them pecuniary harm
regarding their apples (Edwards, 2016, §13-6a). They must evidence that any allegedly
defamatory statements were false.
Defenses applicable to general defamation are also applicable to trade libel (Edwards,
2016, §13-6a). Because the truth is a defense against a charge of defamation, Warren v. Fed Nat'l
Mortg. Ass'n, 932 F.3d 378, 384 (5th Cir. 2019), someone who publishes or says something that
is true pertaining to the goods or business of another has an absolute defense to a trade libel
claim against them for such truthful statement. “[T]ruth is a defense to defamation and trade libel
claims.” Global Plasma Sols., Inc. v. Iee Indoor Env't Eng'g, 600 F. Supp. 3d 1082, 1097 (N.D.
Cal. 2021); Ralston v. Garabedian, 623 F. Supp. 3d 544, 577-578 (E.D. Pa. 2022)(similar).
In the present case, given the limited amount of information in our textbook, it does not
appear from such that the apple growers have established that anything in the CBS’s 60-Minutes
broadcast was false. There are no allegations in our textbook indicating that anything in such
broadcast was false. Even in their actual case against CBS, Auvil v. CBS "60 Minutes", 67 F.3d
4
816 (9th Cir. 1995), there is nothing in such case indicating that such broadcast contained
anything that was false. In other words, the apple growers have not presented that CBS made
false statements in such broadcast. The lack of this critical element of a defamation/trade libel
claim indicates that they do not have a viable defamation/trade libel claim. Moreover, it appears
that, given the amount of scientific data and reports CBS relied on in such program, CBS would
have a plausibly valid defense to such trade libel claims on grounds that CBS’s statements were
true. Id, Global Plasma, 600 F. Supp. 3d at 1097.
Opposing views that argue the apple growers presented false statements made by CBS are
not supported by the facts, as the Auvil court held. Id, Auvil, 67 F.3d at 819-823. Moreover, even
if the apple growers did present false statements made by CBS, there is still another reason they
would not have a viable defamation/trade libel claim: the apple growers must also establish that
CBS did so with while knowing such statements were false, or with reckless disregard for the
truth or falsity of his statement, or out of spite toward the apple growers (Edwards, 2016, §13-
6a), yet they cannot do so. The apple growers could not show any of these things. CBS relied on
a scientific report from the NRDC and scientific data from the EPA and other expert scientists in
making the statements it made, and its statements consisted of basically reporting what was in
the NRDC report and things found by the EPA and other expert scientists relevant to such. Id,
Auvil, 67 F.3d at 817-823. There is no evidence suggesting CBS made such statements while
knowing such material were false, or with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity, or out of spite
toward the apple growers, and any opposing view arguing to the contrary would have a very hard
time proving such because there is no evidence of such. The apple growers thus also do not have
a viable defamation/trade libel claim against CBS for this additional reason even if they can
show that CBS made false statements.
5
References
Auvil v. CBS "60 Minutes", 67 F.3d 816 (9th Cir. 1995).
Edwards, J.S. (2016). Tort Law (6th Edition). Cengage Learning Incorporated: Boston, MA.
Global Plasma Sols., Inc. v. Iee Indoor Env't Eng'g, 600 F. Supp. 3d 1082 (N.D. Cal. 2021).
Ralston v. Garabedian, 623 F. Supp. 3d 544 (E.D. Pa. 2022).
The Holy Bible: Berean Standard Bible. (2020). Biblehub.com. https://biblehub.com (Original
work published 2016).
Wardak v. Goolden, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91816 (S.D. Fla. 2020).
Warren v. Fed Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 932 F.3d 378 (5th Cir. 2019).
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
