by Jesse Stavis
On February 6, 2025, Judge John A. Woodcock, Jr. of the District of Maine issued an eighty-five-page opinion denying a motion to dismiss filed by the Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation (“Monterey Bay”) in a case concerning allegedly defamatory comments about the environmental impact of Maine’s lobster industry. At issue in Bean Maine Lobster, Inc. v. Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation were warnings to consumers to avoid Maine lobster due to the industry’s alleged impact on endangered right whales. Read Duane Morris previous blog about this case here.
Read more: Maine Lobster Dispute Reaches Boiling PointAs part of its conservation efforts, Monterey Bay publishes Seafood Watch, a sustainable seafood advisory list that advises consumers and commercial buyers of seafood on the environmental impact of fishing and trapping operations. Seafood Watch had long rated Maine lobster as a “yellow” product, which means that consumers can feel comfortable buying it but should be aware of certain concerns, but in 2020 it decided to change the rating to red. This relabeling was motivated by concerns about the lobster industry’s impact on right whales, a critically endangered species. Specifically, Seafood Watch pointed to the risk of right whales becoming entangled in the ropes affixed to lobster pots.
The decision to relabel lobster had a major impact on Maine’s billion-dollar lobster industry. Because many commercial buyers rely on Seafood Watch, the relabeling caused a sharp 40% decline in lobster prices.
Reeling from the pinch of the announcement, two industry groups and three lobster companies sued Monterey Bay, alleging that the report that led to the relabeling was defamatory. The plaintiffs argued that the state’s lobster industry had taken a number of measures to protect right whales, including using sinking lines for traps, increasing the number of traps on a given line, and using weak ropes that break away when a whale becomes entangled. They further pointed to the fact that there had not been a single documented case of entanglement in a Maine lobster line since 2004—most entanglements were caused by the thicker lines used by Maine crabbers and Canadian lobstermen. (Notably, during the course of the litigation, a right whale died after becoming entangled in Maine lobster lines; the significance of this development was a major point of contention.)
Defendant Monterey Bay moved to dismiss the complaint on several grounds. First, the defendant argued that the Maine federal court lacked jurisdiction because its only contact with Maine was maintaining a website that was accessible in that state. The court denied this challenge, noting that a Monterey Bay representative gave a lengthy interview about the report to a Maine-based magazine. In a broader sense, the court reasoned that leveling accusations against the lobster industry would inevitably have an impact on Maine because “Maine is synonymous with lobster.”
Having dispensed with the jurisdictional issue, the court turned to the question of whether plaintiffs had stated an adequate claim of defamation. Here, Monterey Bay made three arguments: (1) that its statements were about the lobster industry in general, and not about the individual plaintiffs; (2) that the statements were protected because they were merely opinions; and (3) that plaintiffs could not show either malice or negligence. The court rejected each of these arguments in turn.
First, the court noted that even though Seafood Watch’s report had not mentioned the individual plaintiffs, it had made claims about the entire industry that would necessarily apply to each plaintiff. Second, the court held that plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that the statements in the report were statements of fact, rather than opinion. Here, the court noted that the report included a number of categorical claims (e.g., “At this time, each fishery using this gear is putting this protected species at risk of extinction; “[M]anagement measures… have not been successful at reducing serious injury and mortality”). A reasonable reader, the court concluded, could take claims like this as objective statements of fact. Third, the court held that the plaintiffs had adequately alleged either malice or negligence. The court noted that while citing sources for a conclusion generally shields a publisher from allegations of defamation, there is an exception where the publisher “deliberately ignores evidence that calls into question his published statements.” Because the lobster industry had shared a wealth of data and counterarguments during the writing of the report, and because Seafood Watch had decided to discount this information, a reasonable jury could find that there was actual malice.
Judge Woodcock’s opinion did not mark the end of the dispute. On March 6, Monterey Bay filed an appeal. If the appeal is rejected, and assuming the parties do not settle the dispute, the case will proceed to discovery.
