by Michelle C. Pardo<\/p>\n
Animal activist group Direct Action Everywhere (\u201cDxE\u201d), which made headlines for its members’ multiple criminal charges as a result of trespassing and removing animals from agriculture operations, has been enjoined for its violation of California\u2019s Unfair Competition Law (\u201cUCL\u201d) for its \u201copen rescue\u201d actions against Diestel Turkey Ranch.\u00a0 After targeting Diestel\u2019s turkey farms with its tactics, and launching an \u201cinvestigation\u201d of its turkey raising practices, back in January of 2017, DxE sued Diestel in the Alameda County Superior Court under the UCL and the False Advertising Law (FAL).\u00a0 DxE alleged that Diestel Turkey Ranch\u2019s marketing had made misleading and deceptive claims about how its turkeys are raised.\u00a0 Direct Action Everywhere SF Bay Area v. Diestel Turkey Ranch<\/em> (RG17847475) (Superior Court, Alameda County).<\/p>\n The California UCL and other consumer fraud statutes have been a mainstay of animal rights litigation, as groups have tried to use the statutes to litigate their animal rights\u2019 agendas when they otherwise would not have a private cause of action to sue over animal welfare or have been unsuccessful in banning the use of animals in the legislature.\u00a0 Animal activists have targeted welfare and humane claims by agriculture producers as a direct threat to their vegan and animal liberation agendas.\u00a0 DxE\u2019s Organizer Handbook states: \u201cwe believe that humane meat is the wobbly linchpin holding together the whole system of meat.\u201d\u00a0 DxE\u2019s founder, Wayne Hsuing, recently lost a bid to become the mayor of Berkeley, California, and had stepped down from his DxE leadership role in 2019 in advance of multiple criminal trials for his prior \u201crescue\u201d acts.<\/p>\n DxE alleged that Diestel\u2019s marketing claims that its turkeys were \u201cthoughtfully raised\u201d \u201cchemical free\u201d \u201cantibiotic free,\u201d and that Dietsel operated a \u201cfamily farm\u201d that employs \u201csustainable\u201d practices, were fraudulent and misleading to consumers.\u00a0 Diestel participated in an animal welfare certifying program through Global Animal Partnership (GAP).\u00a0 Believing Diestel\u2019s turkey welfare claims to be false, DxE set out to \u201cinvestigate\u201d Diestel\u2019s farms (often entering agriculture properties unlawfully, at night, and sometimes without protective clothing that violated biosecurity protocols) to videotape and \u201crescue\u201d some of its turkeys.\u00a0 After nine months of targeting Diestel, including multiple trips to its farms and six unauthorized intrusions, DxE found welfare issues with ten out of approximately 50-60,000 birds.\u00a0 Diestel asserted counterclaims against DxE for trespass, conversation and its own UCL claim under the \u201cunlawful\u201d prong for DxE members’ illegal entry and taking of its animals.<\/p>\n Following an eight-day trial, the court issued a Statement of Decision on November 23, 2020.\u00a0 On DxE\u2019s UCL and FAL claims, the court found that DxE did not have standing to sue, as it had not relied to its detriment on any of Diestel\u2019s statements.<\/p>\n The court stated:<\/p>\n “It is not actionable reliance under the law to intentionally divert resources or suffer economic harm in order to attempt to prove your pre-existing belief that advertising is false.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Finding that DxE had standing to pursue its UCL \u201cunlawful\u201d and \u201cunfair\u201d claim (based on California\u2019s animal cruelty and neglect statutes), the court nonetheless found that on the underlying cruelty\/neglect claims, the overwhelming weight of evidence favored Diestel.\u00a0 Astonishingly, DxE made no attempt at trial to prove the predicate animal cruelty and neglect claims (leading the court to find that it had “abandoned” them) and the court found that the testimony by Diestel\u2019s fact and expert witnesses established that the turkeys were provided with good welfare.\u00a0 As for the ten turkeys that were found with issues, the court expressed a pragmatic view, stating:<\/p>\n \u201cThese are as likely as not the harsh realities of an imperfect world and natural selection, which may occur whether one is born on a commercial turkey ranch or on the wilds of the Serengeti.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n DxE was unsuccessful on all of its claims.\u00a0 However, the court found in favor of Diestel on its trespass and conversion claims (awarding nominal damages).\u00a0 Significantly, it also entered judgment for Dietsel on its UCL \u201cunlawful\u201d claim and enjoined DxE from entering Diestel\u2019s properties and prohibited its unlawful seizure (\u201copen rescue\u201d) of turkeys.\u00a0 DxE also will be responsible for Dietsel’s costs.<\/p>\n \u201cAccording to plaintiffs Organizer’s Handbook and the New Activist’s Handbook and the evidence presented at trial, the court finds DxE is engaged in the unlawful business practices of trespass and theft, which it calls open rescues. Cross-defendant Wayne Hsiung admitted he acted in this case and in others as an agent of DxE in carrying out these unlawful business practices. The undisputed evidence in this case was that Hsiung violated the biosecurity protocols for the turkey barns and put the turkeys at risk for disease vectors and pathogens.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The court noted the unfortunate irony of the animal activists actions:<\/p>\n \u201cGiven DxE and Hsiung’ s professed care and concern for the turkeys, one cannot help but wonder how it would have impacted them if their reckless disregard for the turkeys’ biosecurity had resulted in the premature deaths of thousands of the had they been infected with some avian flu or pathogen by their trespass and been put down.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The court warned DxE of the monetary consequences that could follow with subsequent violations of the injunction.<\/p>\n The court’s decision is notable for highlighting the gross hypocrisy of DxE’s actions.\u00a0 Whether the injunction will stop DxE — or other extremist groups — from engaging in illegal activity is yet to be determined.\u00a0 However, it should send a message to animal activists that the UCL is not an easy vehicle for litigating its philosophical agendas, particularly without offering any credible evidence of abuse.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" by Michelle C. Pardo Animal activist group Direct Action Everywhere (\u201cDxE\u201d), which made headlines for its members’ multiple criminal charges as a result of trespassing and removing animals from agriculture operations, has been enjoined for its violation of California\u2019s Unfair Competition Law (\u201cUCL\u201d) for its \u201copen rescue\u201d actions against Diestel Turkey Ranch.\u00a0 After targeting Diestel\u2019s … <\/p>\n