Connection lost
Server error
Auvil v. CBS "60 Minutes" Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Apple growers sued CBS for product disparagement over a “60 Minutes” segment on the chemical Alar. The court granted summary judgment to CBS, finding the growers failed to prove the broadcast’s specific factual statements were false and rejecting a “false overall message” theory.
Legal Significance: Establishes that in a product disparagement claim, the plaintiff must prove the falsity of specific statements, not just a negative “overall message.” This high burden protects media defendants and prevents a chilling effect on speech concerning public health and safety issues.
Auvil v. CBS "60 Minutes" Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
CBS’s “60 Minutes” aired a segment titled “‘A’ is for Apple,” based on a Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) report. The broadcast asserted that daminozide (Alar), a chemical sprayed on apples, was a potent carcinogen posing a particular risk to children. The report cited scientific studies, including animal tests, and featured interviews with an EPA administrator, scientists, and others who corroborated the risks. Following the broadcast, consumer demand for apples plummeted, causing significant financial losses for Washington State apple growers. The growers filed a product disparagement suit against CBS, alleging the broadcast was false. During discovery, which was limited to the issue of falsity, the growers argued that no studies proved Alar caused cancer in humans or specifically in children. They did not, however, provide affirmative evidence to disprove the animal studies or the scientific conclusions drawn from them. The district court granted summary judgment to CBS, and the growers appealed.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: In a product disparagement action, can a plaintiff satisfy the element of falsity by showing that a broadcast’s ‘overall message’ is false, rather than proving the falsity of the specific factual statements made within the broadcast?
No. The court affirmed summary judgment for the defendant because the apple Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Except
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
In a product disparagement action, can a plaintiff satisfy the element of falsity by showing that a broadcast’s ‘overall message’ is false, rather than proving the falsity of the specific factual statements made within the broadcast?
Conclusion
This case reinforces the high bar for product disparagement plaintiffs, requiring proof Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris
Legal Rule
To prevail on a product disparagement claim, the plaintiff bears the burden Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla
Legal Analysis
The Ninth Circuit, predicting Washington state law, analyzed the product disparagement claim Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pa
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- In a product disparagement claim, the plaintiff must prove that specific