Key Points

  • The First Circuit reversed the District of Maine's denial of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation's motion to dismiss and remanded with instructions to dismiss the lobster plaintiffs' defamation complaint.
  • The court predicted that Maine's Supreme Judicial Court would apply the group defamation rule as stated in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 564A.
  • A statement that applies to every member of a large group, such as a fishery of more than 5,600 Maine lobstermen, does not by that fact make particular reference to any one member.
  • The scientific framing of the statements, their call to consumers to avoid the product, and customers' citing the red rating did not satisfy the particular-reference exception.
  • The court declined to adopt the multi-factor Fawcett approach followed in Oklahoma, New York and Utah, and did not reach the aquarium's other arguments.

A federal appeals court has thrown out a defamation lawsuit that Maine lobster companies and fishermen's associations brought against the Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation after its Seafood Watch program told consumers to avoid lobster caught in the Gulf of Maine. The court held that the aquarium's warnings described an entire fishery of thousands and did not single out the businesses that sued.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed a ruling by U.S. District Judge John A. Woodcock, Jr., of the District of Maine that had let the case proceed, and ordered the complaint dismissed. Judge Rikelman wrote the Oct. 9 opinion for a panel that also included Judges Gelpí and Aframe. "Thus, we hold that the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for defamation under Maine law," Judge Rikelman wrote.

The decision rests on the group defamation rule, a common-law doctrine under which a defamatory statement about a large group is not actionable unless the statement or its context targets specific members. The panel concluded that Maine's highest court would not let members of a large industry sue over industry-wide criticism merely because it covers each of them, even when it is framed as science, urges consumers to stop buying, and costs members their customers.

Seafood Watch rates seafood by its environmental impact. A green rating marks a "best choice," yellow a "good alternative," and red seafood that consumers should "avoid."

In September 2022, the aquarium issued a press release and, a day later, a 73-page report that downgraded American lobster from yellow to red. The report advised consumers to "[a]void American lobster caught by trap from Georges Bank and the Gulf of Maine stocks due to risks to the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale and insufficient measures for reducing these risks." The aquarium's concern was that whales become entangled in fishing gear, including the buoy lines that mark lobster traps. The report named none of the plaintiffs.

The five plaintiffs were Bean Maine Lobster, Inc., a seller of Maine lobster; the Maine Lobstermen's Association, which represents about 1,200 of the state's 5,600 lobstermen; the Maine Coast Fishermen's Association; Maine Lobster and Processing, LLC; and Bug Catcher, Inc., a lobster fishing company. They sued in March 2023. The complaint alleged that Bug Catcher's owner had lost about 20% of his business and that a major customer of Maine Lobster and Processing cited the red rating when it stopped buying Gulf of Maine lobster.

In February 2025, Judge Woodcock denied the aquarium's motion to dismiss. Judge Woodcock reasoned that the statements implicated every member of the industry, purported to rest on scientific data rather than hyperbole, included a call to action, and were cited by customers who stopped buying from the plaintiffs. The aquarium appealed the denial of its motion under Maine's anti-SLAPP statute, a since-replaced law aimed at meritless suits that chill the right to petition the government, and the district court certified its broader defamation ruling for immediate appeal.

The panel predicted that Maine's Supreme Judicial Court would follow the Restatement (Second) of Torts on group defamation. Under that version, a member of a defamed group may sue only if the group is small, typically 25 or fewer people, or if the circumstances show "particular reference" to that member. The plaintiffs did not argue on appeal that a fishery of 5,600 lobstermen was a small group.

That left the particular-reference exception. "The fact that a statement may apply to every member of a large group is not enough to trigger the particular-reference exception," Judge Rikelman wrote. The opinion contrasted the First Circuit's 2023 decision in Conformis v. Aetna, where an insurer's coverage policy devoted a subsection to one manufacturer's knee-replacement device, with a 2019 Nebraska Supreme Court decision rejecting claims by tanning salons over a website warning about tanning beds.

The lobster case, the panel said, was "practically indistinguishable" from the Nebraska case. In both, the statements implicated every business that used the criticized equipment, and customers mentioned the statements to the plaintiffs. The panel found nothing comparable to the device-specific subsection in the Aetna policy.

The plaintiffs had argued that the factual nature of the statements meant they necessarily applied to every member of the fishery. In essence, the panel wrote, the plaintiffs asked the court to "expand the rationale of the small-group exception to cover groups of any size, so long as the statement encompasses all members of the group." It declined to align Maine with Oklahoma, New York and Utah, calling them "the small minority of states that follow the multi-factor approach."

The panel also rejected the district court's reliance on the report's call to action. "[W]e are not aware of any precedent suggesting that the advocacy-based nature of a statement may take it beyond the group defamation rule," Judge Rikelman wrote, noting that calls to boycott products and industries are protected under the First Amendment. The court did not decide the case on constitutional grounds but said "First Amendment principles counsel against an expansive reading of the particular-reference exception."

On the lost customers, the panel accepted, as it must at the pleading stage, that the red rating caused the plaintiffs substantial economic harm. It recognized "the significance of the lobster industry to Maine's economy and culture." But it held that customers' citing the rating did not show they "believed the statements were about [the plaintiffs] specifically" rather than about the American lobster fishery in general.

Because the group defamation rule disposed of the claims, the panel did not reach the aquarium's other arguments.

Amy Mason Saharia represented the aquarium, with Williams & Connolly LLP and Norman, Hanson & DeTroy, LLC on the brief. Megan Barbero represented the lobster plaintiffs, with Venable LLP and Ruprecht & Bischoff LLP on the brief.

The case returns to the District of Maine for dismissal of the complaint.