`
`
`
`Case 3:20-cv-05293-LB Document 8 Filed 07/31/20 Page 1 of 52
`
`THE LAW OFFICE OF
`PAIGE M. TOMASELLI
`Paige M. Tomaselli (CSB No. 237737)
`P.O. Box 71022
`Richmond, CA 94807
`paige@tomasellilaw.com
`T: (619) 339-3180
`
`ELSNER LAW & POLICY, LLC
`Gretchen Elsner (pro hac vice forthcoming)
`314 South Guadalupe Street
`Santa Fe, NM 87505
`Gretchen@ElsnerLaw.org
`Tel: 505.303.0980
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`IN DEFENSE OF ANIMALS and
`FRIENDS OF THE EARTH,
`on behalf of the general public,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`SANDERSON FARMS, INC.
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO.:
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR UNFAIR
`COMPETITION AND FALSE
`ADVERTISING
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs In Defense of Animals (IDA) and Friends of the Earth (FoE), by their attorneys,
`allege the following upon information and belief, except for those allegations pertaining to
`Plaintiffs, which are based on personal knowledge:
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05293-LB Document 8 Filed 07/31/20 Page 2 of 52
`
`
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`1.
`This case is brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and the general public regarding
`Sanderson’s farming practices and advertising of its Chicken Products, as listed infra ¶ 76 (the
`“Products”). Defendant Sanderson Farms, Inc. (“Sanderson”) sold these Chicken Products based
`on misleading representations in its advertising and misleading representations regarding its
`practices.
`2.
`
`Sanderson’s advertising misleads consumers in four ways:
`a. Sanderson’s advertising misleads consumers into believing that Sanderson’s
`chickens were not given antibiotics or other pharmaceuticals;
`b. Sanderson’s advertising misleads consumers into believing that the chickens
`were raised in a natural environment;
`c. Sanderson’s advertising misleads consumers into believing that there is no
`evidence that the use of antibiotics and other pharmaceuticals in poultry
`contributes to the evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria; and
`d. Sanderson’s advertising misleads consumers into believing that the Products do
`not contain any antibiotic or pharmaceutical residue.
`3.
`However, the truth is that the feed Sanderson routinely gives to its chickens
`contains antibiotics and pharmaceuticals; the chickens are raised indoors in crowded and dirty
`industrial sheds, which is one reason why its routine use of antibiotics is necessary; there is
`extensive reliable evidence that the use of antibiotics in poultry contributes to antibiotic-resistant
`bacteria; and Sanderson’s chickens have been found to contain antibiotic and/or pharmaceutical
`residue.
`4.
`The ongoing coronavirus global pandemic has highlighted how unsanitary animal
`raising and slaughtering practices, like Sanderson’s, contribute to calamitous consequences for
`public health. The Centers for Disease Control estimates that three out of every four new or
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05293-LB Document 8 Filed 07/31/20 Page 3 of 52
`
`
`
`emerging infectious diseases in people come from animals.1
`5.
`Antibiotic use in poultry, such as Sanderson’s routine use for every flock, has
`contributed to antibiotic resistance.2 Resistant bacterial strains in poultry spread to humans, which
`causes a risk to human health, specifically to poultry workers.3 Poultry workers labor in tight
`conditions in slaughterhouses, which have become hotspots for coronavirus, including Sanderson
`slaughterhouses.4
`6.
`The prevalence of antibiotic resistant bacteria is relevant in the battle against the
`coronavirus pandemic. The Director of the Antibiotic Resistance Action Center at the Milken
`Institute for Public Health at George Washington University5 has stated that antibiotic resistant
`bacteria “are going to be what ultimately kills a large portion of COVID-19 victims as they
`succumb to secondary bacterial pneumonia.”6
`
`
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, available at
`https://www.cdc.gov/onehealth/basics/zoonotic-
`diseases.html#:%7E:text=Scientists%20estimate%20that%20more%20than,States%20and%20aro
`und%20the%20world., last visited July 2020.
`2 Alonso-Hernando, A., Prieto, M., Garcia-Fernandez, C., Alsonso-Calleja, C., Capita, R. (2012).
`Increase over time in the prevalence of multiple antibiotic resistance among isolates of Listeria
`monocytogenes from poultry in Spain. Food Control, 23 (1), 37-41.
`https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2011.06.006, last visited July 2020.
`3 Apata, D.F. (2009). Antibiotic Resistance in Poultry. International Journal of Poultry Science, 8
`(4), 404-408. Agada, G.O.A., Abdullahi, I.O., Aminu, M., Odugbo, M., Chollom, S.C., Kumbish,
`P.R., Okwori, A.E.J. (2014). Prevalence and antibiotic resistance profile of Salmonella isolates
`from commercial poultry and poultry farm handlers in Jos, Plateau State, Nigeria. Microbiology
`Research Journal International 4(4), 462-479. https://doi.org/10.9734/BMRJ/2014/5872.
`Silbergeld, E.K., Graham, J., and Price, L.B. (2008). Industrial food animal production,
`antimicrobial resistance, and human health. The Annual Review of Public Health 29, 151-169.
`10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.020907.090904, last visited July 2020.
`4 The Bryan, Texas processing plant had 49 COVID-19 cases, as one example at one Sanderson
`location, reported by the local news, a https://www.kxxv.com/hometown/brazos-county/49-covid-
`19-cases-reported-at-sanderson-farms-in-bryan, last visited July 2020.
`5 Antibiotic Resistance Action Center, http://battlesuperbugs.com/directory/lance-price, last
`visited July 2020.
`6 Price, Lance B., Ph.D. (2020, April 22). Superbugs: COVID-19’s Coconspirators. Medium.
`https://medium.com/gwpublichealth/superbugs-covid-19s-coconspirators-ebc20b9e0b99, last
`visited July 2020. See also Cox, M. Loman, N., Bogaert, D., O’Grady, J. (2020). Co-infections:
`potentially lethal and unexplored in COVID-19. The Lancet, Vol. 1 May 2020.
`https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanmic/PIIS2666-5247(20)30009-4.pdf.
`3
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05293-LB Document 8 Filed 07/31/20 Page 4 of 52
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`7.
`Sanderson’s advertising makes extensive use of the phrase “100% Natural,” to
`emphasize and support its misleading claims, in conjunction with assorted direct falsehoods, half-
`truths, and selective omissions concerning the four misrepresentations described above.
`8.
`Plaintiffs and reasonable consumers believe that “100% Natural” means that the
`chickens are not fed or injected with antibiotics or pharmaceuticals, and that accordingly, the
`chickens are not sold with antibiotics or pharmaceutical residue in them and that there is no danger
`of antibiotic use contributing to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and that the
`chickens are raised in a natural and humane environment.
`9.
`Plaintiffs suffered injury in fact, and a loss of money or property as a result of
`Defendant’s conduct in advertising, marketing, and selling the Products falsely claimed to be
`“100% Natural,” in addition to the misrepresentations described below. Plaintiffs suffered injury
`in fact, and a loss of money or property, as a result Sanderson’s animal raising practices that harm
`and deceive the public. Sanderson has failed to remedy these harms and has earned, and continues
`to earn, substantial profit from selling the Products.
`10.
`Defendant’s conduct violated and continues to violate consumer protection statutes.
`Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendant on behalf of themselves and the general
`public. Plaintiff Friends of the Earth also brings this case on behalf of its members.
`11.
`Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief requiring Sanderson to make corrective and
`clarifying statements for past and ongoing misrepresentations, to remove the misleading
`misrepresentations going forward, or in the alternative, to change its practices to conform with its
`marketing.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`12.
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1332(d) because Plaintiffs are citizens of a state different from Defendant. This Court has
`supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
`13.
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant has
`sufficient minimum contacts with California, or has otherwise purposely availed itself of the
`markets in California through the promotion, advertising, marketing, and sale of the Products in
`4
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05293-LB Document 8 Filed 07/31/20 Page 5 of 52
`
`
`
`California to render the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court permissible under traditional notions
`of fair play and substantial justice.
`14.
`Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) because (1) Defendant does substantial
`business in this District; and (2) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to these
`claims occurred in this District, and Defendant engaged in the extensive promotion, advertising,
`marketing, distribution, and sales of the Products at issue in this District.
`15.
`Venue is also proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because Plaintiff In
`Defense of Animals resides in the Northern District of California and Plaintiff Friends of the Earth
`maintains a presence in the Northern District of California.
`16.
`Intradistrict assignment to San Francisco per Local Rule 3-5(b) and 3-2(c) is
`appropriate because Plaintiffs are located in or near San Francisco.
`
`
`PARTIES
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs
`In Defense of Animals
`17.
`Plaintiff In Defense of Animals is an international not-for-profit animal protection
`organization founded in 1983. IDA’s principal place of business is located in San Rafael,
`California, where it is incorporated. Its mission is to rescue animals in need, foster respect for all
`sentient beings, and spark a revolution of compassion that liberates animals from the tyranny of
`systemic cruelty and exploitation. Consistent with this mission, IDA aims to inform the public
`about the ways in which animal agriculture impacts animal welfare.
`18.
` IDA has more than 250,000 supporters across the globe, with over 450,000
`followers on social media.
`19.
`As a result of Sanderson’s advertising, IDA diverted staff time from its core
`mission of ending animal exploitation to addressing Sanderson’s advertising and the consumer
`confusion that Sanderson caused.
`20.
`On December 6, 2016, IDA approached the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in
`writing with its concerns about Sanderson’s advertising.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05293-LB Document 8 Filed 07/31/20 Page 6 of 52
`
`
`
`21.
`On approximately December 21, 2016, IDA published an action alert titled “Report
`Sanderson Farms Deceptive Ads!” It also Tweeted the “Report Sanderson Farms Deceptive Ads!”7
`22.
`On December 21, 2016, IDA Tweeted “Sanderson Farms is confusing the public
`with misdirected ‘facts’ to defend its use of #antibiotics.”8 That same day, IDA published a similar
`statement to Facebook, specifically naming Sanderson, and stating that IDA was seeking “to get
`these ads off air.”9 More than 300 people engaged with the post and it has been shared more than
`70 times.
`23.
`In January 2017, IDA filed a formal complaint with the Better Business Bureau
`National Advertising Division (NAD). The complaint addressed Sanderson’s advertising on
`antibiotics, attached examples from Sanderson’s website, social media, and YouTube, and stated,
`“We believe the claims in these ads to be extremely misleading.” IDA corresponded with the NAD
`January through April 2017.
`24.
`On February 23, 2017, IDA issued a media release stating that Sanderson “actively
`misleads customers” and referenced the millions of dollars spent on the advertising campaign that
`“loudly promoted its practice of pumping chickens with antibiotics as harmless, and smeared
`Chicken raised without antibiotics as a ‘trick to get you to pay more money.’” IDA invested staff
`time in phoning and emailing individual news outlet to promote the press release.
`25.
`On February 24, 2017, IDA published an action alerts to its members regarding
`Sanderson titled, “What is Sanderson Farms Trying to Hide From Us?” and it stated in part,
`Sanderson “promotes its use of antibiotics as harmless, yet it won’t agree to a federal government
`study to measure the health risks.” IDA Tweeted on February 27, 2017, “Sanderson Farms
`promotes antibiotic use as harmless, yet won’t agree to a government study.”10 On February 27,
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
` The Tweet is posted online at https://twitter.com/IDAUSA/status/813519996433350656. The
`Tweet links to a Huffington Post article that was updated in April 2017, after the date of the
`Tweet.
`8 The Tweet is posted online at https://twitter.com/IDAUSA/status/811809315925262336.
`9 The Facebook post is online at
`https://www.facebook.com/indefenseofanimals/posts/10154816354922346.
`10 This Tweet is posted online at https://twitter.com/IDAUSA/status/836260037593075712.
`6
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05293-LB Document 8 Filed 07/31/20 Page 7 of 52
`
`
`
`2017, IDA asked its Facebook followers to take action, specifically, “Tell Sanderson Farms that if
`it wants to promote the use of antibiotics as harmless and safe, that it should be open to scientific
`scrutiny.”11 More than 400 people engaged with the post and more than 70 people shared it.
`26.
`On April 22, 2017, IDA’s article in the Huffington Post stated that Sanderson was
`confusing the public with its Bob and Dale commercials on antibiotics. Specifically, the article
`stated, “Instead of cleaning up its dirty operation, Sanderson Farms is confusing and blurring the
`issue in hopes that consumers won’t worry about the industry’s prolific antibiotic use. Guess
`what? That makes Sanderson’s warning about marketing gimmicks little more than a marketing
`gimmick itself.”
`27.
`During the NAD process, Sanderson informed the NAD that IDA used Facebook,
`IDA’s website and other social media outlets to notify the public that Sanderson’s advertising was
`deceptive and designed to confuse the public. Sanderson also informed the NAD that IDA had
`issued an action alert and asked the public to sign a petition to get Sanderson’s ads off the air.
`Sanderson told the NAD that IDA’s president had written an article that was published in the
`Huffington Post criticizing Sanderson’s advertising. At least some of IDA’s communications
`referenced the NAD process, and Sanderson requested that the NAD administratively close the
`complaint because of IDA’s communications to the public. In April 2017, the NAD
`administratively closed the complaint.
`28.
`In July 2017, IDA alerted the public via a blog post and Facebook to the fact that
`Sanderson had been sued for false advertising by Friends of the Earth, Center for Food Safety and
`the Organic Consumers Association, a lawsuit to which IDA was not a party.
`29.
`From July 2017 to 2019, IDA followed the Friends of the Earth v. Sanderson
`Farms lawsuit to determine if Sanderson would be ordered to cease its false and misleading
`statements to the public.
`30.
`In 2019, IDA continued its work to educate the public regarding Sanderson’s
`
`
`
`
`11 The Facebook post is available at
`https://www.facebook.com/indefenseofanimals/photos/a.10150796907537346/1015502642165234
`6/?type=3&theater.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05293-LB Document 8 Filed 07/31/20 Page 8 of 52
`
`
`
`harmful farming practices and Sanderson’s misleading communications to the public about those
`practices. On November 26, 2019, IDA issued an action alert to over 250,000 members and
`activists on IDA’s email list to make its supporters aware of Sanderson’s deceitful
`communications. The action alert stated, in part,
`• “Battle Deceptive Advertising Claims by Mega-Meat Corporations.”
`• “Sanderson Farms claims that its chicken meat is “100% natural.” However,
`Sanderson raises chickens inside of cramped industrial sheds and administers a
`slew of antibiotics and other pharmaceuticals to them prior to their terrifying
`slaughter. This is far from natural in any sense of the term. Please join us in holding
`Sanderson Farms accountable for this deceptive advertising!”
`31.
`In that action alert, IDA urged its members to sign a petition regarding Sanderson.
`The petition web page stated, in part, “If Sanderson gets away with spreading this misleading
`information, it will signal to other Big Ag giants that they can do the same.” IDA collected 4,047
`petition signatures. The petition letter stated, in part, “I demand Sanderson Farms immediately
`cease all practices that are inconsistent with its “100% Natural” marketing. These practices
`include, but are not limited to, using antibiotics routinely, selling chicken meat with antibiotic-
`resistant bacteria, and confining chickens exclusively indoors in crowded conditions.”
`32.
`IDA also called its supporters to “Battle Deceptive Advertising Claims by Mega
`#Meat Corporations,” and again specifically identified the company by Tweeting on November
`24, 2019, “#SandersonFarms claims that its #chicken meat is ‘100% natural.’ However, it raises
`#chickens inside of cramped industrial sheds with antibiotics to them prior to their terrifying
`slaughter.”12 Again on November 28, 2019, IDA told its followers, “Today, the majority of animal
`farms rely on antibiotics . . . #SandersonFarms is no exception.”13 That same say, IDA also asked
`its Facebook followers to send a letter to Sanderson,14 and then on November 30, 2019, again
`
`
`
`
`12 This Tweet is available online at https://twitter.com/IDAUSA/status/1198663154785497088.
`13 This Tweet is available online at https://twitter.com/IDAUSA/status/1200142451815723008.
`14 The Facebook post is available at
`https://www.facebook.com/indefenseofanimals/posts/10157726790392346.
`8
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05293-LB Document 8 Filed 07/31/20 Page 9 of 52
`
`
`
`asked its followers to help “Battle Deceptive Advertising Claims by Mega-Meat Corporations.”15
`33.
`On April 10, 2020, IDA, working with FoE and Center for Food Safety, issued a
`letter to Sanderson specifically raising its concerns with Sanderson’s advertising not meeting
`consumer expectations in numerous ways and therefore being misleading. The letter stated, in part,
`“We are hopeful that Sanderson will come to the table ready to discuss a global resolution of the
`public health, food safety, animal welfare, and consumer protection issues that have caused our
`organizations and our members and supporters such great concern.”
`34.
`Sanderson responded on April 29, 2020. Instead of addressing any of the public
`health, food safety, animal welfare, and consumer protection issues, the letter stated, “Sanderson
`reserves its rights to pursue all available remedies should you and your organizations continue to
`pursue vexatious litigation based on invented assertions of injury, and Sanderson will aggressively
`and vigorously defend itself in any such litigation.”
`35.
`After receiving Sanderson’s response, IDA continued to invest staff time in
`determining how best to communicate with Sanderson, despite its unwillingness to communicate,
`and how to pressure Sanderson to make its marketing truthful. The work culminated in an
`additional letter to Sanderson.
`36.
`On July 9, 2020, IDA, in cooperation with FoE and Center for Food Safety, sent
`another letter to Sanderson to renew its concerns about Sanderson’s deceptive marketing,
`Sanderson’s farming practices, and the risk to public health from those farming practices in light
`of the coronavirus global pandemic. For example, the letter addressed antibiotic resistance on
`poultry products and that antibiotic resistant bacteria are anticipated to kill COVID-19 patients as
`they succumb to secondary bacterial pneumonia. The letter also invited Sanderson once again to
`come to the table to discuss a resolution.
`37.
`As of this filing, Sanderson has not acknowledged receipt or responded.
`38.
`IDA’s work regarding Sanderson from 2016 to present has involved the staff time
`
`
`
`
`15 The Facebook post is available at
`https://www.facebook.com/indefenseofanimals/posts/10157731947692346.
`9
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05293-LB Document 8 Filed 07/31/20 Page 10 of 52
`
`
`
`of IDA’s Farmed Animals Campaign Director, IDA’s communications team, and IDA’s IT team.
`Friends of the Earth
`39.
`Plaintiff Friends of the Earth is a national non-profit environmental advocacy
`organization founded in 1969. FoE has offices in Berkeley, California, and Washington, D.C,
`where it is incorporated. Its mission is to defend the environment and champion a healthy and just
`world. To this end, FoE promotes policies and actions that ensure the food we eat and the products
`we use are sustainable and safe for our health and the environment.
`40.
`FoE has more than 325,000 members in all fifty states, of whom more than 56,000
`are in California. Additionally, FOE has more than 1.7 million activist supporters on its email list
`throughout the United States, with more than 190,000 in California.
`41.
`FoE’s “Good Food Healthy Planet” program is focused on reducing the harmful
`environmental, animal welfare, and public health impacts of industrial animal foods. The program
`helps grow the consumer market and policy support for healthier, grass-fed and organic meat and
`dairy, and plant-based foods. FoE’s program educates the public about the impact of meat
`consumption and production, especially related to the issue of antibiotics and other harmful
`chemicals in animal products. FoE is a co-author of “Chain Reaction,” an annual report and
`scorecard that grades America’s top restaurant chains on their policies and practices regarding
`antibiotic use and transparency in their meat and poultry supply chains. The report also covers the
`use of hormones and availability of organic and grass-fed options. FoE has campaigned over the
`past several years to eliminate the routine use of antibiotics in animal agriculture, with a focus on
`changing the purchasing policies of large restaurant chains that buy large quantities of industrial
`meat.
`
`42.
`FoE, which currently has ten staff based in Berkeley, California, co-authored a
`report in 2015 titled “Spinning Food: How Food Industry Front Groups and Covert
`Communications Are Shaping the Story of Food,”16 addressing the issues related to chemical-
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`16 The report is available at https://foe.org/news/2015-06-big-food-and-chemical-corporations-
`spend-millions-to-attack-organic/, last visited July 2020.
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05293-LB Document 8 Filed 07/31/20 Page 11 of 52
`
`
`
`intensive industrial agriculture. Berkeley-based FoE staff also educated the public through blog
`posts in 2015 titled, “Antibiotic Resistance—with a side order of fries?”17 FoE’s Berkeley staff
`authored “Redefining Good Food at the Nation’s Largest Casual Restaurant Company,”18 an
`article produced as part of the Good Food Now campaign that was partially focused on the need to
`change Darden Restaurant’s sourcing practices around industrial meat production and the use of
`antibiotics. Sanderson sells its chicken to Darden Restaurants.
`43.
`In August 2015, FoE staff, particularly the Deputy Director of Food and
`Agriculture, became aware of Sanderson’s business practices by reading a May 2015 Wall Street
`Journal article titled, “Sanderson Farms CEO Resists Poultry-Industry Move to Curb Antibiotics:
`Chicken processor CEO Joe Sanderson calls public-health concerns over antibiotic-resistant
`bacteria overblown.” Given Sanderson’s recalcitrance in addressing antibiotic use concerns,
`Friends of the Earth made the strategic decision to address the negative effects of Sanderson’s
`unfair business practices and deceptive advertising by pressuring Sanderson’s institutional
`customers (e.g. Olive Garden, owned by Darden Restaurants, Inc. (hereinafter, “Darden”)), who
`are household names, and also publicly linking those institutional buyers to Sanderson. Friends of
`the Earth campaigned intently between 2015 and 2018 to eliminate the routine use of antibiotics in
`animal agriculture, with a focus on changing the purchasing policies of large restaurant chains that
`buy significant quantities of industrial meat, including from Sanderson. Throughout this
`campaign, Olive Garden, owned by Darden and supplied by Sanderson, was Friends of the Earth’s
`highest priority campaign target.
`44.
`On August 1, 2016, Sanderson publicly announced its refusal to eliminate the
`routine use of antibiotics for its chickens. At the same time, Sanderson launched its “Bob and
`Dale” advertising campaign, telling consumers that they do not need to worry about antibiotics in
`their chicken products. Specifically, Sanderson claimed: “there’s only chicken in our chicken,”
`
`
`17 Blog post available at https://foe.org/2015-09-antibiotic-resistance-with-a-side-order-of-fries/,
`last visited July 2020.
`18 Article available at https://foodrevolution.org/blog/redefining-good-food-darden-restaurants/,
`last visited July 2020.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05293-LB Document 8 Filed 07/31/20 Page 12 of 52
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`and there are “no antibiotics to worry about here,” among other things.
`45.
`Friends of the Earth immediately took additional steps to address Sanderson’s
`newest deceptive business practices, diverting resources to counteract Sanderson’s misinformation
`within days of the August 1, 2016 public statements. On August 3, 2016, Friends of the Earth’s
`Deputy Director of the Food and Agriculture Program researched, drafted, and published a blog
`post on antibiotics in the food supply and specifically addressed Sanderson Farms’ business
`practices, calling the company “recalcitrant.”19 Friends of the Earth’s antibiotics campaign had not
`previously publicly named Sanderson, but in order to counteract the impact of Sanderson’s
`unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices, it diverted additional resources from its other
`institutional priorities to mount a direct attack on Sanderson’s business practices and promote
`greater consumer awareness about these practices. On August 23, 2016, Friends of the Earth sent
`an alert to 322,149 supporters which stated:
`One of Darden’s suppliers is Sanderson Farms – a massive chicken
`corporation. While other chicken producers are taking major steps to reduce
`antibiotic use, Sanderson is digging in. It’s rejecting the science and
`refusing to do the right thing. As long as Darden continues to purchase meat
`from Sanderson, it’s contributing to the problem. Tell Darden to dump
`Sanderson Farms and other suppliers if they won’t stop contributing to one
`of the nation’s leading public health threats.
`
`
`
`46.
`This direct attack on Sanderson’s advertising and business practices required
`investigation, research, planning, and staff time, and took these resources away from Friends of
`the Earth’s core educational and policy work. Due to Sanderson’s unfair business practices,
`Friends of the Earth spent at least $8,900 that it would have spent to advance other programs.
`47.
`Throughout August, September, and October 2016, Friends of the Earth
`supplemented its public statements, and blog posts, with a push on social media during the period
`Sanderson released its “Bob and Dale” advertising campaign and created confusion around its
`business practices. Friends of the Earth communicated with the public approximately a dozen
`times through social media to address antibiotics, farmed animals, antibiotic resistance, chickens
`
`
`
`
`19 This blog post remains publicly available at https://www.ecowatch.com/mcdonalds-chicken-
`now-raised-without-antibiotics-1957382218.html, last visited July 2020.
`12
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05293-LB Document 8 Filed 07/31/20 Page 13 of 52
`
`
`
`in cramped conditions, and Sanderson’s large institutional customer during this time. Friends of
`the Earth also produced evidence of its collaboration with other organizations concerned about
`Sanderson’s practices, including researching to whom Sanderson sold its products.
`48.
`In September 2017, FoE, along with Center for Food Safety, published “Chain
`Reaction III: How Top Restaurants Rate on Reducing Antibiotics in Their Meat Supply.” In a box
`titled “What the Cluck?” the report addressed Sanderson:
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05293-LB Document 8 Filed 07/31/20 Page 14 of 52
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`49.
`Based in part on the above injuries, FoE and Center for Food Safety filed a lawsuit
`against Sanderson under California’s Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law. After
`two years of litigation, the district court erroneously determined on July 31, 2019, that FoE and
`Center for Food Safety did not have standing and the Plaintiffs were denied an opportunity to
`litigate the merits of Sanderson’s false and misleading advertising. Friends of the Earth v.
`Sanderson Farms, Inc., C. 17-03592, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127964 (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2019).
`This decision is currently on appeal.
`50.
`Sanderson’s false and misleading advertising and marketing continued. In 2019,
`FoE reengaged its supporters, members, and the public regarding Sanderson’s harmful farming
`practices and Sanderson’s misleading communications to the public about those practices. On
`November 26, 2019, FoE issued an action alert to 452,959 members and activists on FoE’s email
`list to make its supporters aware of Sanderson’s deceitful communications. The action alert stated,
`in part:
`
`• “Factory farmed chicken isn’t ‘100% natural’: Tell Sanderson to stop lying to
`customers.”
`• “The time is now to demand that Sanderson either produce chicken that meets
`consumer expectations for ‘100% natural’ or stop lying to consumers. There is
`power in numbers – can we count on your voice?”
`51.
`In that action alert, FoE urged its members to sign a petition regarding Sanderson.
`The petition web page stated, in part, “If Sanderson gets away with spreading this misleading
`information, it will signal to other Big Ag giants that they can do the same.” FoE collected 7,421
`petition signatures. The petition letter stated, in part, “I demand Sanderson Farms immediately
`cease all practices that are inconsistent with its “100% Natural” marketing. These practices
`include, but are not limited to, using antibiotics routinely, selling chicken meat with antibiotic-
`resistant bacteria, and confining chickens exclusively indoors in crowded conditions.”
`52.
`FoE surveyed its members regarding their chicken purchases and the factors that
`their members consider when choosing which chicken to purchase.
`53.
`On April 10, 2020, FoE, working with IDA and Center for Food Safety, issued a
`14
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05293-LB Document 8 Filed 07/31/20 Page 15 of 52
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`letter to Sanderson specifically raising its concerns with Sanderson’s