## Facts

- CBS’s “60 Minutes” aired a segment, “‘A’ is for Apple,” discussing the plant growth regulator daminozide (Alar) used on apples and the pace of governmental response to safety concerns.
- The segment relied heavily on a Natural Resources Defense Council report and other scientific and regulatory materials indicating daminozide breaks down into UDMH, identified as carcinogenic.
- The broadcast characterized Alar as a “potential” or “probable” carcinogen and asserted children faced greater harm due to higher consumption of apple products relative to body weight.
- Washington apple growers alleged the broadcast conveyed that Alar causes cancer in humans, Alar-treated apples are unsafe, and government regulators acted irresponsibly.
- The growers alleged the segment precipitated a sharp drop in consumer demand for apples, causing substantial economic losses.

## Issues

1. Whether the growers produced sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute that CBS published false factual statements about Alar’s carcinogenicity and alleged risks, as required for product disparagement.
2. Whether a product disparagement plaintiff may avoid summary judgment by showing the broadcast’s overall “message” was false or misleading even if discrete statements are not shown false.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for CBS.
- The court held the growers failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact that any specific statement in the broadcast was false.
- The court rejected liability based on an allegedly false overall “message” where plaintiffs did not prove falsity of particular statements.

## Legal Principles

- Product disparagement (injurious falsehood) requires proof that the defendant published a false statement that harms the plaintiff’s pecuniary interests; the plaintiff bears the burden to prove falsity.
- For such claims, the relevant showing is falsity of specific factual statements, not the alleged falsity of the overall gist, tone, or “message.”
- Evidence that scientific research is incomplete (including the absence of direct human epidemiological studies) does not, by itself, establish falsity where the challenged reporting is supported by existing scientific studies and regulatory risk assessments.
- A plaintiff opposing summary judgment must present evidence from which a reasonable jury could find the challenged statements false, not merely controversial, debatable, or harmful in economic effect.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that the growers could not proceed on a product disparagement theory without evidence that CBS’s specific factual statements about Alar were false, and that an allegedly misleading overall impression was not a substitute for proof of falsity.


Auvil v. CBS “60 Minutes”, 67 F.3d 816 (9th Cir. 1995)