Purdue markets "Fresh Line" chicken and turkey products. Although these chickens and turkeys were apparently raised indoors, the product labels show the birds roaming freely outside a barn.
The Department of Agriculture enforces the Poultry Products Inspection Act, which prohibits the use of false or misleading labels on poultry products. And, labels that have animal treatment claims on them must be approved by the Department before they are used. The labels used by Purdue were approved by the Department.
The Animal Legal Defense Fund sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture, arguing that the Department violated federal law by approving labels that mislead consumers into thinking that Purdue's chickens and turkeys were raised in pastures, when in fact they spent their whole lives in overcrowded warehouses.
The federal district court dismissed the case, holding that ALDF didn't have standing to sue. And, on appeal, the D.C. Circuit affirmed. The court held that although ALDF has properly alleged that one of its members had been harmed, the organization was not able to show that this harm is ongoing or substantially likely to recur. (That's because once the member knows the label doesn't mean what she thinks it means, she shouldn't be misled again when buying the product.) This showing was essential because the organization was only seeking declaratory and injunctive relief in the case, not damages.
So, if you were hoping for an answer to the question of whether it's problematic to show birds roaming free, when they're only raised indoors, you're not going to get it from this case. It certainly appears that the Department of Agriculture doesn't think it's a problem.
I'm not sure that's the best take-away from this case, however. It's well-settled that advertisers are responsible for all express and implied claims that are reasonably communicated by their ads, taking into account the entire context of the ad. Many cases have held – and many enforcement actions have been brought – on the basis that visuals can create a misleading impression.
Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Vilsack, 2024 WL 3732881 (D.C. Cir. 2024).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.