COURT GREEN-LIGHTS DEFAMATION LAWSUIT AGAINST HSUS

A little-noticed court ruling could become a big headache for the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), according to Courthouse News Service, an online legal news outlet.

In a July 17 story, Courthouse News Service reported that a Missouri state appeals court has ruled that a dog breeder in that state may proceed with her defamation suit against the HSUS, which in 2010 included the breeder’s kennel operation on a list called “Missouri’s Dirty Dozen.”

The breeder is Mary Ann Smith, whose son, Jason–unfortunately for HSUS–is a Republican member of Congress. She originally brought suit against the Humane Society in 2011, but a circuit court dismissed her claims. That ruling was reversed by the Southern District Missouri Court of Appeals on June 29, saying that HSUS must face defamation and invasion of privacy claims after ranking Smith’s kennel “among the worst puppy mills in Missouri.”

Smith described the HSUS claims as “false, scandalous and defamatory,” and said they deprived her business “of public confidence and social and business associations.”

In reversing the lower court’s dismissal, Judge Nancy Steffen Rahmeyer wrote, “In a press release, it was stated that ‘the licensed puppy mills identified in this report have an undeniable record of flagrant disregard for even the most minimal humane care standards for dogs…These statements imply verifiable factual information, not statements of opinion.”

In 2010, when HSUS published the “Missouri’s Dirty Dozen” list, the animal rights group was actively campaigning for passage of the “Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act,” a statewide referendum ostensibly designed to prohibit “cruel and inhumane treatment of dogs raised in large-scale breeding farms.” The referendum passed by a narrow one-percent margin in the November 2010 election.

In March 2011, however, the Missouri legislature rewrote much of the act, removing many of the most onerous regulatory provisions it contained, saying the referendum as written would have put the state’s extensive dog breeding industry out of business.

The appeals court found that the Humane Society’s “public statements allegedly attributed to her (Smith) conduct and beliefs associated with irresponsible and disreputable dog breeders that she did not engage in, share or approve…these statements allegedly placed plaintiff in a false light and caused injury to her right to be let alone.”

While defamation cases are notoriously difficult to win, AGC Communications Coordinator Gary Guccione said, “It’s encouraging that this individual has at least won the right to have her case heard in the courts,” he said. “Too often, groups like HSUS are allowed a free ride because small business owners just can’t afford to take them on. HSUS has millions of dollars to spend on litigation; the rest of us just can’t afford to do that.”