ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND v. HORMEL FOODS

No. 19-CV-0397.

258 A.3d 174 (2021)

ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, Appellant, v. HORMEL FOODS CORP., Appellee.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Decided September 2, 2021.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

David S. Muraskin , with whom Kelsey Eberly , of the bar of the State of California, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, was on the brief, for appellant.

Aaron D. Van Oort , of the bar of the State of Minnesota, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Frank S. Swain , Tyler A. Young , of the bar of the States of Massachusetts and Minnesota, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, and Martin J. Demoret , of the bar of the States of Iowa and Nebraska, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, were on the brief, for appellee.

Allison M. Zieve and Scott L. Nelson , Washington, filed an amicus curiae brief for Public Citizen Litigation Group in support of appellant.

Cheryl Leahy , Sarah Hanneken , and Wendy Watts filed an amicus curiae brief for Animal Outlook f/k/a Compassion Over Killing, Animal Equality, and The Humane League in support of appellant.

Craig L. Briskin , Washington, filed an amicus curiae brief for National Consumers League in support of appellant.

Katherine Campbell , Robert George , of the bar of the States of Arkansas and Oklahoma, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, and Kathy McCarroll , of the bar of the State of Arkansas, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, filed an amicus curiae brief for The North American Meat Institute, American Association of Meat Processors, National Pork Producers Council, Grocery Manufacturers Association, National Chicken Council, National Turkey Federation, and Southwest Meat Association in support of appellee.

Before Thompson, McLeese, and Deahl, Associate Judges.


The Animal Legal Defense Fund sued Hormel Foods in connection with meat products it advertises as "Natural Choice." ALDF claims the ads are misleading in violation of the District of Columbia's Consumer Protection Procedures Act. See D.C. Code §§ 28-3901 et seq. (2013 Repl.). In its view, the ads falsely...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases