SLAPP Suits, Oprah, and Pesticides

Picture by Todd Wiseman (The Texas Tribune)

When Oprah Winfrey said on her show in 1996 that "mad cow disease" had convinced her not to eat beef, she was sued by a group Texas cattlemen for $12 million in damages.  That suit is one of the most famous examples of what are known as SLAPP suits, which stands for "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation".

According to a Texas Tribune article from 2010, the purpose of these lawsuits is not to win anything but . . . 

SLAPP plaintiffs use the court system to bury opponents in a crush of legal fees and paperwork of Bleak House proportions. They are not about winning damages. They usually don’t expect to be successful, and their targets often don’t have the money to defend the case. [For]corporations equipped with teams of lawyers and swollen legal budgets, the cost-benefit analysis is easy: Foot the expense of a lawsuit through whatever means available — usually a defamation or libel claim — and enjoy the benefit of intimidating current and future critics into silence.

Oprah won her suit after a six week trial and $1 million spent in legal fees, but she refuses to discuss the case to this day--even after Texas passed "Anti-SLAPP" legislation in 2011.

When 60 Minutes did a story in 1989 on the pesticide Alar, its use in apple growing, and its carcinogenic properties, apple farmers sued the show for . . .
$100 million in damages.  They lost, appealed, and lost again on  appeal.   That year, under threat of legal action from the EPA, apple growers voluntarily stopped using the chemical.

27 states have passed "Anti-SLAPP" legislation, but attempts at passing similar federal legislation have not been successful.

For more information on these legal maneuvers and for dozens more stories about SLAPP cases, visit the website for the Public Participation Project.