Friends of the Earth v. Organic Consumer Ass'n, No. 19-16696 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal for lack of organizational standing of an action brought by two public interest groups against Sanderson Farms, alleging false advertising related to the use of antibiotics. The panel concluded that the groups failed to establish standing through a diversion of resources to combat Sanderson's advertising. In this case, the district court did not err by weighing the evidence and concluding that the various activities proffered by the groups were continuations of non-Sanderson-specific initiatives undertaken in furtherance of their missions to address antibiotic use generally. The panel also concluded that the California Unfair Competition Law claim fails because it is tethered to Sanderson's advertisements.
Court Description: Organizational Standing The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal for lack of organizational standing of an action brought by two public interest groups (“Advocacy Groups”) against Sanderson Farms, Inc., a major poultry producer, alleging false advertising related to the use of antibiotics. To establish organizational standing, the Advocacy Groups needed to show that the challenged conduct frustrated their organization missions and that they diverted resources to combat that conduct. The panel held that the Advocacy Groups failed to establish standing when they failed to show a diversion of their resources to combat Sanderson’s advertising. Once Sanderson’s misleading advertisements were brought to the attention of the Advocacy Groups, they simply continued doing what they were already doing – publishing reports on and informing * The Honorable Robert H. Whaley, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation. FRIENDS OF THE EARTH V. SANDERSON FARMS 3 the public of various companies’ antibiotic practices. There was no evidence of any diversion of resources. The panel rejected the Advocacy Groups’ argument that their California Unfair Competition Law claims should nevertheless move forward because they challenged Sanderson’s husbandry practices, not just its advertising. The panel held that the Unfair Competition Law claim failed because it was tethered to Sanderson’s advertisements.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.