Editing Food libel laws (section)

=== ''Beef Products, Inc. v. ABC News'' (Pink Slime case) ===
On March 7, 2012, [[ABC News (United States)|ABC News]] aired a segment dedicated to investigating a beef product called lean finely textured beef (LFTB) sold by the South Dakota beef company [[Beef Products Inc|Beef Products, Inc]] (BPI). ABC News correspondents, including [[Diane Sawyer]], reported on a whistleblower's claim that BPI's LFTB was used as a filler in the ground beef sold by many American beef companies, as a way of cutting costs. According to the unknown whistleblower and ABC News, BPI's LFTB was derived from beef trimmings sprayed with ammonia, and resembled "[[pink slime]]".<ref name=":7">{{Cite news|url=https://www.denverpost.com/2017/06/05/pink-slime-trial-begins/|title="Pink slime" or lean finely textured beef? Food defamation trial set to begin|date=2017-06-05|work=The Denver Post|access-date=2018-11-19|language=en-US}}</ref> Throughout March and April, ABC News continued to run segments and publish articles about BPI's LFTB, including publishing updates on the company's financial losses after the original segment's airing.<ref name=":7" />

On September 12, 2012, BPI sued ABC News for food disparagement under South Dakota's food libel legislation. They claimed that ABC News falsely portrayed their product, lean finely textured beef, as unfit for human consumption. BPI also claimed that ABC News' disparaging content led to serious financial damages for BPI. By their report, sales of BPI's LFTB dropped from five million to two million pounds per week, prompting the closure of three out of four production facilities and the lay-off of 700 employees. ABC News responded by calling for the case to be dismissed, arguing that it was within ABC News' First Amendment rights to investigate matters of possible concern to their viewers.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Nicole|first=Sasaki|date=Summer 2014|title=Beef Products, Inc. v. ABC News: (Pink) Slimy Enough to Determine the Constitutionality of Agricultural Disparagement Laws?|url=https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/46713269.pdf|journal=Pace Environmental Law Review|volume=31|issue=3 |pages=771–802|doi=10.58948/0738-6206.1752 }}</ref>

The case went to trial in June, 2017. Under South Dakota's Agricultural Food Products Disparagement Act, BPI could have received as much as $5.7 billion in statutory trebled damages were ABC News found liable.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/05/us/pink-slime-lawsuit.html?action=click&module=RelatedCoverage&pgtype=Article&region=Footer|title=Trial Will Decide if ABC News Sullied a Company With 'Pink Slime'|access-date=2018-11-19|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/abc-news-braces-57-billion-pink-slime-trial-heart-trump-country-1009269|title=ABC News Braces for $5.7 Billion "Pink Slime" Trial in the Heart of Trump Country|work=The Hollywood Reporter|access-date=2018-11-19|language=en}}</ref> After the case had been tried for only three out of the expected eight weeks, ABC News and BPI reached a settlement of $177 million. At the time, this was the largest settlement recorded for a media defamation case. The terms of the settlement were not released.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://money.cnn.com/2017/08/09/media/disney-abc-news-pink-slime-settlement/|title=Disney paying at least $177 million to settle 'pink slime' lawsuit|last=Kludt|first=Tom|work=CNNMoney|access-date=2018-11-19}}</ref>