## Facts

- During heightened public concern in 1996 about bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and a related human variant of Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease reported in the United Kingdom, U.S. media widely covered potential beef-safety risks.
- An April 1996 episode of *The Oprah Winfrey Show* discussed whether BSE-like risks could affect U.S. consumers and included guest Howard Lyman, a former cattle rancher and food-safety advocate.
- The broadcast addressed cattle-feeding practices involving animal-derived proteins and discussed the possibility that such practices could contribute to BSE-related problems.
- Oprah Winfrey stated that the discussion “stopped [her] cold from eating another burger,” which plaintiffs alleged communicated that American beef was unsafe.
- Texas cattle ranchers and feedlot operators alleged the broadcast caused substantial declines in cattle futures and cash prices, resulting in economic losses.
- Plaintiffs sued the host, the guest, and entities involved in producing and distributing the program, asserting statutory and common-law disparagement theories.

## Issues

1. Whether federal subject-matter jurisdiction existed after removal based on diversity, or whether the case should have been remanded to state court.
2. Whether defendants were liable under the Texas False Disparagement of Perishable Food Products Act for knowingly disseminating false information that beef was unsafe.
3. Whether plaintiffs proved common-law business disparagement, including falsity, the required level of fault, and causation of special damages, consistent with First Amendment limits.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment for defendants.
- The court held that any initial defect in diversity at removal did not require reversal because complete diversity existed by the time of trial and judgment after dismissal of non-diverse parties.
- The court affirmed dismissal of the Texas food disparagement statutory claim because plaintiffs failed to show defendants knowingly made false statements; the court did not decide whether “fed cattle” fell within the statute.
- The court affirmed the defense verdict on business disparagement, concluding the evidence supported the jury’s rejection of actionable false statements and fault, and the challenged statements were largely non-actionable opinion or rhetorical expression in a public health debate.

## Legal Principles

- A removal-related diversity defect may be cured by later dismissal of non-diverse parties; if complete diversity exists at judgment, an appellate court may uphold jurisdiction despite an earlier remand error.
- Liability under Texas’s food disparagement statute requires proof that the defendant knowingly disseminated false information about the safety of a covered food product.
- Statements that are opinion, hyperbole, or commentary based on disclosed facts—especially on matters of public concern and scientific uncertainty—generally do not constitute actionable false statements of fact.
- Business disparagement under Texas law requires proof of a false, disparaging publication, the requisite fault (malice), lack of privilege, and special damages; generalized market decline and public controversy may defeat causation and falsity showings.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit upheld jurisdiction and affirmed judgment for the media defendants, holding that plaintiffs failed to prove knowing falsity under Texas’s food disparagement statute or the elements of business disparagement where the broadcast consisted largely of protected commentary and expressions about food-safety risks.


Tex. Beef Grp. v. Winfrey, 201 F.3d 680 (5th Cir. 2000)