Posted on 01/13/2005 3:26:26 PM PST by berkeleybeej
California's "Happy Cows" ads might be fairly cheesy, but that doesn't mean the state can be sued over them.
On Tuesday, San Francisco's 1st District Court of Appeal declared the California Milk Producers Advisory Board exempt from the state's false advertising laws, preventing People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Inc. from suing the agency over its popular campaign showing blissful bovines in a pastoral paradise.
PETA, based in Norfolk, Va., had claimed that the ads were "explicitly and implicitly untrue, deceptive and misleading" -- that California cows actually lead harsh lives in grubby fields before being slaughtered.
In their ruling, the appellate justices made no comment about the state of cattle contentment but simply held that a "plain reading" of the state's unfair competition law -- Business & Professions Code §17200 -- shows that public entities, such as the milk board, aren't subject to false advertising suits.
"Section 17201 does not include any references to governmental agencies or political entities," Justice Ignazio Ruvolo wrote. "Had the Legislature wished to include governmental entities, such as the CMAB, in its definition of 'person[s]' subject to UCL liability, it would have done so."
The ruling, in which Justices J. Anthony Kline and Paul Haerle concurred, made no finding about the ads' truthfulness.
PETA had asked the courts to block the ads, which portray dairy cows enjoying life under sunny skies in green pastures surrounded by white picket fences. The ads end with an announcer intoning: "Great cheese comes from happy cows. Happy cows come from California."
PETA claims that's a lie. It claims that California cows live in feces-soaked dirt lots devoid of vegetation and are milked straight through pregnancies, after which their calves are packed in crates and sold as veal.
The appeal court's ruling affirms San Francisco Superior Court Judge David Garcia, who dismissed the suit in 2003. Like the appeal court, Garcia based his decision on California Medical Association v. Regents of the University of California, 79 Cal.App.4th 542, a 2000 2nd District ruling that said a public entity is not a person subject to suit within the meaning of the UCL.
The appeal court also noted that while the state Legislature included governmental entities in the Unfair Practices Act of 1941, it didn't include them in the UCL, enacted in 1977.
The justices also agreed with another 2nd District ruling that held it would be an infringement of sovereign power for the milk board to be subject to suit under the UCL for a promotional campaign. They noted, however, that the plain language of the statute was enough to resolve the conflict without addressing the sovereign power issue.
As they did during oral arguments, the justices pointed out in the ruling that PETA could have filed a complaint with the director of the state's Department of Food and Agriculture. The director could have held an administrative hearing, they said, or referred the complaint to the attorney general, if necessary.
Matthew Penzer, PETA's legal counsel, couldn't be reached for comment Tuesday. But San Francisco-based Deputy Attorney General Tiffany Yee, who argued the case for the state, called the outcome a "very good ruling."
"The court was correct by declining to expand 17200's reach to include the state," she said, "and by recognizing the state's ability to promote its economy even if somebody might disagree with what the state says."
The ruling is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Inc. v. California Milk Producers Advisory Board, 05 C.D.O.S. 277.
Have to be honest, I snared this from the DU site. I think it'll be interesting to compare FReeper reaction to the DUers.
BTW, I have a few cows w/calves. They are very happy, indeed spoiled. But the calves are beef, not dairy.
That's what courts are supposed to do. Follow the law, instead of making a new one up.
People actually get paid for being morons, and the tax payer pays for some of these bogus lawsuits.
Now, if they had shown a ad, featuring Barbara Boxer and Maxine Waters, along with the slogan, they would have had a case.
The liberal freaks of this country will try to get away with anything, especially in the courts, hoping for an activist liberal judge that will attempt to re-write legislation on the bench, and rule in their favor, even though that judge would face being dis-barred, and stiff penalties.
But the libs don't care about the law -- it is an OBSTACLE for them.
Bad case of jaundice and bizarre birthmarks. But a pretty nice outfit.
On the one hand, I think PETA are full of bullsh*t (no pun untended), and I thoroughly enjoy watching them get a beating in the courts. I'd like to see them countersued one day and udderly (pun fully intended) ruined.
On the other hand, I also do not agree that government agencies are exempt from truth in advertising laws. It opens up too big a hole for liberal propaganda.
PETA lost this one for the wrong reason. Their case could not have stood on its own merits. How can PETA prove the mental state of an animal and whether or not it's happy or not?
Moo!
I love those commercials. :-)
those commercials are totally funny.......only PETA could extract some type of devastating effect from them. I think they need to laugh more to reduce their stress levels so they need to watch more of these.
Since I grew up on a dairy farm, I think I have a lot more experience with cows than anybody at PETA does, collectively. I base my knowledge on practical, hands-on experience, not pictures and propaganda.
1) Cows must be kept as clean as possible. This prevents infections in their udders, and makes cleaning them off before milking a lot easier.
2) While some cows are kept in feedlots (on concrete, not dirt! Hard to scrape "feces" from dirt...), most are pastured. Why? Grass is free, simple enough.
Ditto - love the one where the cows keep ringing the farmers doorbell!!!!!!!!!
Ok PETA is officially insane. Maybe a human would find living in a field a problem, and when it rains, yes a soggy field. But to apply human attributes to a cow is insane.
I agree with your stand. I think any law that applies to the hoi polloi should apply to some greater extent, say from 125% to 200% depending upon the specific law in question, to the government. First of all, we are supposed to be the masters, they, the servants. Secondly, it would be a fine deterrent from them passing laws that make life difficult for the productive sector of society.
The real CRIME commited was by the criminal(describing the lawyer) lawyer who took this into court and by the eactivist leftist judge who accept this farce to begin with and then the next layer of idiot judges who did not simply disbar(?)... disrobe (?)... hell with it - let's just DISMANTLE these judges and the lawyer minions and get this country back to sanity, morality, and honor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.