If They Lie (And They Will Lie), Sue Them

What does a $400,000 fine levied against an Australian duck farm on behalf of consumers have to do with protecting animals from abuse? Maybe quite a bit.
Lawyers who are passionate about changing the world for animals often have to think out of the box. Laws protecting animals are weak, and they are usually only enforceable by prosecutors, not by private lawyers. But there are many types of laws meant to protect people that, if enforced, can also have the effect of protecting animals. One of the most promising areas is consumer protection law, and, in particular, false advertising law.
It comes as no surprise that the agribusiness interests that are treating animals with unspeakable cruelty are not eager to advertise their practices. But the word is starting the leak out, and they are starting to realize that they can no longer just keep quiet and hope no one notices. Of course, for most, the answer to this problem isn’t to improve things for animals. No, it’s much simpler just to lie. Only that’s false advertising, and that means you can get sued.
Laws in the US protecting people from false advertising exist at the federal level and in every state. As in every area of law, there are complicated variations as to who can sue and on what grounds. Every lawyer interested in animals should take it upon themselves to brush up on these variations, and think about what potential exists. Indeed, the crack legal teams at organizations such as Compassion Over Killing, the Humane Society of the United States, PETA and the Animal Legal Defense Fund (which very recently sued an organic egg farm in California for false advertising) have been focusing on this area for a while, and you can expect to see more out of all of them on this front. But you don’t have to work for an organization to bring a case like this, and, if successful, you might be able to get attorney’s fees.
One sign that this area of law is going to be heating up in the near future is a case out of Australia against a duck farm that was selling 80,000 ducks per week. One of the reasons for its success was that it was telling folks that its ducks were ‘open range’ and ‘grown nature’s way’ and was using packaging carrying a picture of a duck strolling around on grass with a background of a lake. It was all lies, of course. The ducks lived in crowded barns, no lakes in sight.
As noted above, in spite of the disingenuous assertions of the company’s owner that it didn’t intentionally deceive its customers (huh?), the Australian courts just fined Pepe’s $400,000 and made them change their advertising and notify their customers.
This is a great sign that courts may be starting to wake up to the fact that people are not blind to these issues. Even if they have not yet awakened to the joys of leaving animals off their plates completely, people are starting to wake up to the horror of what’s really going on and are willing to pay money to feel better about what happens to animals. If companies are forced to stop lying, it could be a great step forward for animals. Of course, if they were actually forced to start affirmatively telling the truth, it could put an end to animal agribusiness.