{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca1-25-1772-2026-10-09","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca1-25-1772-2026-10-09)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-20","fingerprint":"ewai:us:49b4aa","proof":"sha256:abde1be053f75590d5e9a77a89489bc4dc3e930a42534cc4516b579b119e8445","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:ca1-25-1772-2026-10-09","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"United States Court of Appeals","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"For the First Circuit","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Nos. 25-1206, 25-1772","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"BEAN MAINE LOBSTER, INC; MAINE LOBSTERMEN'S ASSOCIATION; MAINE","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"COAST FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATION, INC.; MAINE LOBSTER AND","paragraphs":["para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10"]},{"title":"APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE","paragraphs":["para_13"]},{"title":"Before","paragraphs":["para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18"]},{"title":"Gamse, Claire R. Cahill, Edward L. Pickup, Harold W. Hild, and","paragraphs":["para_20"]},{"title":"Megan Barbero, with whom Clifford Ruprecht, Ruprecht &","paragraphs":["para_22"]},{"title":"Boyle, Stephanie P. Diu, Kyle H. Keraga, and Venable LLP were on","paragraphs":["para_24","para_25"]},{"title":"October 9, 2026","paragraphs":["para_27"]},{"title":"RIKELMAN, Circuit Judge. This appeal concerns the","paragraphs":["para_29","para_30","para_31","para_32","para_33"]},{"title":"Aquarium Foundation (\"the Aquarium\") for defamation under Maine","paragraphs":["para_35","para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43","para_44"]},{"title":"I. BACKGROUND","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"A. Relevant Facts1","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"The Maine lobster industry \"employs more than 5,600","paragraphs":["para_48","para_49"]},{"title":"2 Like the district court, we adopt the parties' use of","paragraphs":["para_51","para_52"]},{"title":"80% of the country's lobster landings.\" At the center of the Maine","paragraphs":["para_54","para_55"]},{"title":"Ocean. That is, the Maine lobster industry \"targets\" lobster stock","paragraphs":["para_57","para_58","para_59"]},{"title":"The five plaintiffs in this case play important roles in","paragraphs":["para_61","para_62"]},{"title":"Maine-caught lobster and lobster foods\"; (2) the Maine","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Lobstermen's Association, Inc., a nonprofit \"that represents","paragraphs":["para_65"]},{"title":"Fishermen's Association, Inc., a nonprofit \"that works to enhance","paragraphs":["para_67","para_68"]},{"title":"Processing, LLC, \"a third-generation Maine lobster company","paragraphs":["para_70"]},{"title":"States\"; and (5) Bug Catcher, Inc., \"a lobster fishing company\" in","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Maine run by \"a sixth-generation lobsterman.\"","paragraphs":["para_73","para_74","para_75","para_76"]},{"title":"The Aquarium is a nonprofit conservation and education","paragraphs":["para_78"]},{"title":"Seafood Watch, which assigns ratings to different species of","paragraphs":["para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84","para_85","para_86","para_87","para_88","para_89"]},{"title":"For many years, the Aquarium has raised concerns about","paragraphs":["para_91","para_92"]},{"title":"North Atlantic right whale is listed as an endangered species under","paragraphs":["para_94"]},{"title":"Protection Act. According to the Aquarium, one threat to the North","paragraphs":["para_96","para_97","para_98","para_99","para_100","para_101","para_102"]},{"title":"That Plan required implementation of \"innovative fishing practices","paragraphs":["para_104"]},{"title":"In the years since, those efforts have been \"continuously updated","paragraphs":["para_106","para_107","para_108"]},{"title":"North Atlantic right whale population increased from 295 whales to","paragraphs":["para_110"]},{"title":"In 2014, the Aquarium's Seafood Watch program assigned","paragraphs":["para_112","para_113","para_114"]},{"title":"2017, the National Marine Fisheries Service detected an \"unusual","paragraphs":["para_116","para_117"]},{"title":"In the last decade, the Maine lobster industry has","paragraphs":["para_119","para_120"]},{"title":"Plan in 2021 \"decreased the amount of rope in the water, created","paragraphs":["para_122","para_123"]},{"title":"1,000 square miles of fishing grounds for an entire season each","paragraphs":["para_125","para_126"]},{"title":"Nevertheless, in September 2022, the Aquarium issued a","paragraphs":["para_128","para_129","para_130","para_131","para_132","para_133","para_134","para_135","para_136"]},{"title":"The day after announcing that it was assigning these new","paragraphs":["para_138"]},{"title":"73-page report at issue in this case (\"the Report\"), detailing its","paragraphs":["para_140","para_141"]},{"title":"American lobster from yellow to red. It recommended that consumers","paragraphs":["para_143"]},{"title":"Gulf of Maine stocks due to risks to the critically endangered","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"North Atlantic right whale and insufficient measures for reducing","paragraphs":["para_146","para_147","para_148","para_149","para_150","para_151","para_152","para_153","para_154","para_155","para_156"]},{"title":"In the Report, the Aquarium did not identify by name any","paragraphs":["para_158","para_159","para_160","para_161"]},{"title":"Inc. estimates that he has lost about 20% of his business since","paragraphs":["para_163","para_164","para_165","para_166"]},{"title":"B. Procedural History","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"The plaintiffs eventually sued the Aquarium for","paragraphs":["para_169","para_170","para_171","para_172"]},{"title":"In their complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Aquarium \"knowingly and intentionally published false and","paragraphs":["para_175","para_176","para_177","para_178"]},{"title":"North Atlantic right whales.\" The plaintiffs challenge the","paragraphs":["para_180"]},{"title":"(a) \"At this time, each fishery using this","paragraphs":["para_182","para_183"]},{"title":"(b) \"No one wants to know their appetite for","paragraphs":["para_185"]},{"title":"(c) \"Seafood rated Avoid comes from sources","paragraphs":["para_187"]},{"title":"The seafood is caught or farmed in ways that","paragraphs":["para_189","para_190","para_191","para_192"]},{"title":"(d) \"[M]anagement measures and the Atlantic","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Large Whale Take Reduction Plan have not been","paragraphs":["para_195","para_196"]},{"title":"(e) \"Based on the available information and","paragraphs":["para_198","para_199","para_200"]},{"title":"(f) \"The updated assessments highlight","paragraphs":["para_202","para_203"]},{"title":"North Atlantic right whale and the lack of","paragraphs":["para_205","para_206","para_207"]},{"title":"(g) \"Seafood Watch reviewed all available","paragraphs":["para_209","para_210"]},{"title":"3 We indicate with highlighting where plaintiffs only","paragraphs":["para_212","para_213","para_214"]},{"title":"14 assessments released today are part of","paragraphs":["para_216","para_217","para_218","para_219","para_220","para_221","para_222","para_223"]},{"title":"(i) \"Avoid/Red: Take a pass on [seafood","paragraphs":["para_225","para_226","para_227","para_228"]},{"title":"Others appear in the Report. Still others do not appear in either","paragraphs":["para_230"]},{"title":"Two months after the plaintiffs sued, the Aquarium filed","paragraphs":["para_232","para_233","para_234"]},{"title":"Maine/Georges Bank area lobster industry at large, not \"of and","paragraphs":["para_236","para_237"]},{"title":"4 These statements do not appear together in the Press","paragraphs":["para_239"]},{"title":"5 We assume that the Aquarium made these statements elsewhere","paragraphs":["para_241","para_242","para_243","para_244","para_245","para_246","para_247","para_248"]},{"title":"The district court denied the Aquarium's motion to","paragraphs":["para_250","para_251"]},{"title":"2025). The court first concluded that the plaintiffs had \"carried","paragraphs":["para_253","para_254","para_255","para_256"]},{"title":"6 SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public","paragraphs":["para_258","para_259","para_260","para_261","para_262"]},{"title":"2008). Under the statute, defendants could file a \"special motion","paragraphs":["para_264","para_265"]},{"title":"Maine legislature has since replaced that statute with a more","paragraphs":["para_267"]},{"title":"7 The Aquarium also contended that the plaintiffs had not","paragraphs":["para_269"]},{"title":"Separately, the Aquarium sought dismissal for lack of personal","paragraphs":["para_271","para_272","para_273","para_274","para_275","para_276","para_277","para_278","para_279"]},{"title":"In its ruling, the district court acknowledged the group","paragraphs":["para_281","para_282","para_283","para_284","para_285","para_286","para_287","para_288","para_289","para_290"]},{"title":"Specifically, the district court determined that the","paragraphs":["para_292","para_293","para_294","para_295","para_296","para_297","para_298","para_299","para_300","para_301","para_302","para_303"]},{"title":"The Aquarium timely appealed the denial of its","paragraphs":["para_305"]},{"title":"Separately, it moved for certification of an interlocutory appeal","paragraphs":["para_307","para_308","para_309","para_310","para_311","para_312"]},{"title":"II. STANDARD OF REVIEW","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"We review de novo a district court's denial of a motion","paragraphs":["para_315","para_316","para_317","para_318","para_319","para_320"]},{"title":"III. DISCUSSION","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"The Aquarium contests multiple aspects of the district","paragraphs":["para_323","para_324","para_325","para_326"]},{"title":"For starters, \"[a]s a federal court sitting in diversity","paragraphs":["para_328","para_329"]},{"title":"Blakesley v. Marcus, 158 F.4th 90, 95 (1st Cir. 2025) (citation","paragraphs":["para_331","para_332","para_333","para_334"]},{"title":"2025 WL 416436, at *46. Thus, we must \"endeavor to predict how","paragraphs":["para_336","para_337"]},{"title":"Lawrence Gen. Hosp. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 90 F.4th 593, 598 (1st","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Cir. 2024)). And as \"it is quintessentially the province of state","paragraphs":["para_340","para_341"]},{"title":"100 (citation modified) (first quoting Markham v. Fay, 74 F.3d","paragraphs":["para_343","para_344"]},{"title":"With that in mind, we trace the history and rationale of","paragraphs":["para_346","para_347","para_348"]},{"title":"8 The district court had jurisdiction to consider the","paragraphs":["para_350","para_351"]},{"title":"Court\") would hold that the group defamation rule bars the","paragraphs":["para_353"]},{"title":"A. The Group Defamation Rule and Its Exceptions","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"To maintain an action for defamation under Maine law, a","paragraphs":["para_356","para_357"]},{"title":"521 A.2d 714, 716 (Me. 1987). When a statement defames a large","paragraphs":["para_359","para_360","para_361","para_362","para_363","para_364","para_365","para_366","para_367","para_368"]},{"title":"See R v. Alme & Nott (1699) 91 Eng. Rep. 790; 3 Salk. 224 (KB)","paragraphs":["para_370","para_371","para_372","para_373","para_374","para_375"]},{"title":"As the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia","paragraphs":["para_377","para_378","para_379","para_380","para_381"]},{"title":"Dobbs, Paul T. Hayden & Ellen M. Bublick, The Law of Torts § 531","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(2d ed. 2011) (explaining the rationales for the group defamation","paragraphs":["para_384"]},{"title":"The modern understanding of the group defamation rule is","paragraphs":["para_386","para_387","para_388"]},{"title":"Court would adopt its approach to the group defamation rule as","paragraphs":["para_390","para_391"]},{"title":"Specifically, § 564A of the Second Restatement states:","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"One who publishes defamatory matter concerning","paragraphs":["para_394","para_395","para_396"]},{"title":"(a) the group or class is so small that","paragraphs":["para_398","para_399"]},{"title":"9 This public policy rationale is distinct from the","paragraphs":["para_401","para_402","para_403"]},{"title":"(b) the circumstances of publication","paragraphs":["para_405","para_406","para_407","para_408"]},{"title":"The group defamation rule, as articulated in the Second","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Restatement, thus consists of a general principle -- \"no action","paragraphs":["para_411","para_412"]},{"title":"The first is the \"small-group exception,\" which typically applies","paragraphs":["para_414"]},{"title":"Statements here described the activities of some 5,600 lobstermen","paragraphs":["para_416","para_417","para_418","para_419","para_420"]},{"title":"The theory behind the small-group exception is","paragraphs":["para_422","para_423","para_424","para_425","para_426"]},{"title":"The other exception is the \"particular-reference","paragraphs":["para_428","para_429","para_430","para_431"]},{"title":"Dictionary (10th ed. 1993). For many years, courts have concluded","paragraphs":["para_433","para_434"]},{"title":"Parking Corp., 92 F.2d at 506 (claim failed under group defamation","paragraphs":["para_436","para_437"]},{"title":"(Ark. 1908) (statement not actionable for lack of evidence that","paragraphs":["para_439","para_440"]},{"title":"Two more recent cases illustrate the particular-","paragraphs":["para_442"]},{"title":"Nebraska Cancer Coalition, 932 N.W.2d 71 (Neb. 2019), a group of","paragraphs":["para_444","para_445","para_446","para_447"]},{"title":"10 The district court referred to this as the \"circumstances-","paragraphs":["para_449","para_450","para_451","para_452","para_453","para_454","para_455"]},{"title":"Nebraska\" and that \"[j]ust one indoor tanning session increases","paragraphs":["para_457","para_458","para_459","para_460"]},{"title":"Although the challenged statements in JB & Associates","paragraphs":["para_462","para_463","para_464","para_465"]},{"title":"(applying Second Restatement). The court noted that nothing in","paragraphs":["para_467","para_468","para_469","para_470","para_471","para_472"]},{"title":"By contrast, in Conformis, Inc. v. Aetna, Inc., 58 F.4th","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"517 (1st Cir. 2023), we applied the Second Restatement under","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Massachusetts law and concluded that the particular-reference","paragraphs":["para_476","para_477","para_478"]},{"title":"(explaining that a disparagement claim has many of the same","paragraphs":["para_480","para_481","para_482","para_483","para_484","para_485","para_486","para_487","para_488","para_489","para_490"]},{"title":"TKR device. Id. at 529. Further, third parties had understood","paragraphs":["para_492","para_493","para_494","para_495"]},{"title":"But the fact that Aetna's statement applied to the","paragraphs":["para_497","para_498","para_499","para_500","para_501","para_502","para_503","para_504","para_505","para_506","para_507","para_508"]},{"title":"JB & Associates and Conformis are just two illustrations","paragraphs":["para_510","para_511","para_512","para_513","para_514","para_515","para_516"]},{"title":"Dearing, 561 S.E.2d 686, 689 (Va. 2002) (so holding after","paragraphs":["para_518","para_519","para_520"]},{"title":"Inc., 565 F. Supp. 829, 831-33 (N.D. Ind. 1983) (applying the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Second Restatement test and holding that members of a group of 165","paragraphs":["para_523","para_524","para_525","para_526","para_527"]},{"title":"The plaintiffs point to Ball v. Taylor, but that decision","paragraphs":["para_529","para_530","para_531","para_532","para_533","para_534"]},{"title":"F.3d 915, 916-18 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam).12 The plaintiffs","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"11 See also Dobbs et al., supra, § 531 (\"[I]ndividual members","paragraphs":["para_537","para_538","para_539"]},{"title":"8A Alfred W. Gans et al., American Law of Torts § 29:49 (Feb. 2026","paragraphs":["para_541","para_542","para_543","para_544","para_545"]},{"title":"(May 2026 update) (asserting that \"when all members of the class","paragraphs":["para_547"]},{"title":"Me. Lobster, 2025 WL 416436, as a \"powerful[] demonstrat[ion]\" of","paragraphs":["para_549","para_550","para_551"]},{"title":"As we explain in Section III.B, infra, Fawcett does not follow the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Second Restatement approach. And Florio held (in dicta, because","paragraphs":["para_554","para_555","para_556","para_557","para_558"]},{"title":"12 Every other case cited by the plaintiffs in which a court","paragraphs":["para_560","para_561","para_562","para_563"]},{"title":"Finally, we are mindful that -- as the Aquarium and","paragraphs":["para_565","para_566","para_567"]},{"title":"Rivera-Isuzu de P.R., Inc. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., 233","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"F.3d 24, 28 (1st Cir. 2000). \"[S]peech on public issues occupies","paragraphs":["para_570","para_571","para_572"]},{"title":"The plaintiffs do not dispute that speech critical of","paragraphs":["para_574"]},{"title":"Second Restatement was met aligns with this principle. For","paragraphs":["para_576"]},{"title":"Inc., the court applied the Second Restatement and explained that","paragraphs":["para_578"]},{"title":"(1) whether a reference to \"Scientology\" in an allegedly","paragraphs":["para_580","para_581","para_582","para_583","para_584","para_585","para_586","para_587","para_588"]},{"title":"(2d Cir. 2001). The court concluded that such a particular","paragraphs":["para_590","para_591","para_592","para_593","para_594","para_595"]},{"title":"And speech critical of industry practices is frequently met with","paragraphs":["para_597"]},{"title":"Supp. 2d 858, 863-64 (N.D. Tex. 1998), aff'd, 201 F.3d 680 (5th","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (speech critical of beef industry);","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Schuster v. U.S. News & World Rep., Inc., 602 F.2d 850, 851 (8th","paragraphs":["para_601","para_602"]},{"title":"First Amendment principles counsel against an expansive reading of","paragraphs":["para_604"]},{"title":"B. The Aquarium's Statements Are Not Actionable Under the Group","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Defamation Rule","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"The parties agree that the group defamation rule applies","paragraphs":["para_608","para_609","para_610","para_611","para_612"]},{"title":"Inc., 2025 WL 416436, at *47. And the plaintiffs do not allege","paragraphs":["para_614","para_615"]},{"title":"The plaintiffs insist, however, that the group","paragraphs":["para_617","para_618","para_619","para_620","para_621","para_622","para_623","para_624","para_625","para_626"]},{"title":"To be sure, many cases barring claims against large","paragraphs":["para_628","para_629"]},{"title":"481, 483 (D. Mass. 1980) (statement that editorial staff and","paragraphs":["para_631"]},{"title":"(Second) of Torts § 564A cmt. a (giving as examples the Psalmist's","paragraphs":["para_633"]},{"title":"13 We acknowledge the plaintiffs' assertion in their brief","paragraphs":["para_635","para_636","para_637","para_638","para_639","para_640","para_641","para_642","para_643","para_644"]},{"title":"14 The district court cited these same rationales in","paragraphs":["para_646","para_647","para_648","para_649","para_650","para_651","para_652","para_653","para_654"]},{"title":"See, e.g., JB & Assocs., 932 N.W.2d at 75-77, 79-80 (statements","paragraphs":["para_656"]},{"title":"Publ'ns, Inc., 104 P.2d 860, 861-62 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1940)","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(statement that union officials were diverting dues to fund","paragraphs":["para_659"]},{"title":"Sup. Ct. 1815) (statement that officers of three militia companies","paragraphs":["para_661","para_662","para_663","para_664"]},{"title":"Nor are we convinced that the Statements in fact","paragraphs":["para_666","para_667","para_668","para_669"]},{"title":"Aquarium notes, others -- including lead plaintiff Bean Maine","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"15 Further, as the Aquarium points out, the group-defamation","paragraphs":["para_672","para_673"]},{"title":"Haworth v. Feigon, 623 A.2d 150, 156 n.3 (Me. 1993) (statements","paragraphs":["para_675","para_676"]},{"title":"(1990)); see also Nat Stern, The Certainty Principle as","paragraphs":["para_678"]},{"title":"951, 991-92 (2008) (reasoning that dismissal under the group","paragraphs":["para_680","para_681","para_682","para_683"]},{"title":"Lobster -- allege they are only involved in downstream activities","paragraphs":["para_685"]},{"title":"Regardless, the plaintiffs have not cited, and we have","paragraphs":["para_687","para_688","para_689","para_690","para_691"]},{"title":"Arcand, 567 F.2d at 1164 (rule permits suit \"if a defamatory","paragraphs":["para_693","para_694","para_695","para_696","para_697","para_698","para_699"]},{"title":"Bowling Green, Inc. v. Sanders, 563 S.W.2d 8, 8-9 (Ky. 1978) (per","paragraphs":["para_701","para_702","para_703","para_704","para_705","para_706","para_707","para_708"]},{"title":"We are not persuaded by the plaintiffs' arguments. The","paragraphs":["para_710"]},{"title":"42 (Okla. 1962) -- a case that predates the Second","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Restatement -- and New York and Utah cases that follow its","paragraphs":["para_713"]},{"title":"226 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981); Elias v. Rolling Stone LLC, 872 F.3d 97","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(2d Cir. 2017); Pratt v. Nelson, 164 P.3d 366 (Utah 2007). In","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Fawcett, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma adopted a multi-factor test","paragraphs":["para_717","para_718","para_719","para_720"]},{"title":"34 Colum. L. Rev. 1322, 1324-25 (1934)). But that is not the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Second Restatement test, and so we decline to hold that the Law","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Court would join the small minority of states that follow the","paragraphs":["para_724"]},{"title":"(distinguishing the Fawcett test from the Second Restatement","paragraphs":["para_726"]},{"title":"Group Defamation Rule, 40 Ariz. St. L.J. 951, 966-67 (2008)","paragraphs":["para_728"]},{"title":"District of Columbia that there is no \"'bright line' above which","paragraphs":["para_730"]},{"title":"1999). But they neglect to quote the following line of the","paragraphs":["para_732","para_733"]},{"title":"25 members [and] will almost invariably not be permitted to sue if","paragraphs":["para_735","para_736"]},{"title":"(\"Oklahoma and New York have remained lonely enclaves of official","paragraphs":["para_738","para_739"]},{"title":"Conformis and JB & Associates help to illustrate why the","paragraphs":["para_741"]},{"title":"Although the Aquarium does not dispute that it \"intended the","paragraphs":["para_743","para_744","para_745","para_746"]},{"title":"58 F.4th at 529. And unlike in Conformis, there is no reference","paragraphs":["para_748","para_749","para_750"]},{"title":"The facts in JB & Associates, on the other hand, are","paragraphs":["para_752","para_753","para_754","para_755","para_756","para_757","para_758","para_759","para_760","para_761","para_762"]},{"title":"Associates -- beyond their mere membership in the group allegedly","paragraphs":["para_764","para_765"]},{"title":"Finally, we are not convinced that the Law Court would","paragraphs":["para_767","para_768"]},{"title":"2025 WL 416436, at *47-49. The court emphasized that \"the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Statements were not merely informational but included a call to","paragraphs":["para_771","para_772","para_773","para_774","para_775","para_776"]},{"title":"Claiborne Hardware, 458 U.S. at 909 (calls to join boycott \"involve","paragraphs":["para_778"]},{"title":"323 U.S. 516, 537 (1945) (First Amendment protects \"opportunity to","paragraphs":["para_780"]},{"title":"The district court also concluded that the lost business","paragraphs":["para_782","para_783","para_784","para_785","para_786","para_787"]},{"title":"No. 22-cv-147, 2022 WL 2901068 at *13 (D. Me. July 22, 2022)). We","paragraphs":["para_789","para_790"]},{"title":"(as we must on review of a motion to dismiss) that Seafood Watch's","paragraphs":["para_792"]},{"title":"Id. at *34, *48; see Maldonado v. Fontanes, 568 F.3d 263, 266 (1st","paragraphs":["para_794"]},{"title":"But the new insurance policy in Conformis had \"profound","paragraphs":["para_796","para_797","para_798","para_799","para_800","para_801","para_802","para_803","para_804"]},{"title":"Assocs., 932 N.W.2d at 79. We therefore do not view this evidence","paragraphs":["para_806","para_807"]},{"title":"Ultimately, we conclude that the Law Court would not","paragraphs":["para_809","para_810","para_811","para_812","para_813","para_814","para_815","para_816"]},{"title":"IV. CONCLUSION","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"For all these reasons, we reverse the district court's","paragraphs":["para_819","para_820"]}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"United States Court of Appeals","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"For the First Circuit","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"Nos. 25-1206, 25-1772","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"BEAN MAINE LOBSTER, INC; MAINE LOBSTERMEN'S ASSOCIATION; MAINE","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"COAST FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATION, INC.; MAINE LOBSTER AND","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"PROCESSING, LLC, d/b/a Atwood Lobster, LLC; BUG CATCHER, INC.,","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"Plaintiffs, Appellees,","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"v.","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"MONTEREY BAY AQUARIUM FOUNDATION,","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"Defendant, Appellant.","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"[Hon. John A. Woodcock, Jr., U.S. District Judge]","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"Before","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"Gelpí, Rikelman, and Aframe,","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"Circuit Judges.","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"Amy Mason Saharia, with whom Russell B. Pierce, Jr., Norman,","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"Hanson & DeTroy, LLC, Lisa S. Blatt, Joseph M. Terry, Nicholas G.","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"Gamse, Claire R. Cahill, Edward L. Pickup, Harold W. Hild, and","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"Williams & Connolly LLP were on brief, for appellant.","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"Megan Barbero, with whom Clifford Ruprecht, Ruprecht &","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"Bischoff LLP, Kevin J. Lipson, Elizabeth M. Wilson, Edward P.","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"Boyle, Stephanie P. Diu, Kyle H. Keraga, and Venable LLP were on","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"brief, for appellees.","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"- 2 -","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"October 9, 2026","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"- 3 -","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"RIKELMAN, Circuit Judge. This appeal concerns the","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"so-called \"group defamation rule.\" Under that rule, a defamatory","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"statement about a large group is not actionable unless the","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"statement or its context indicates that it is targeted at specific","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"members of the group. Here, multiple companies and organizations","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"involved in the Maine lobster industry sued the Monterey Bay","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"Aquarium Foundation (\"the Aquarium\") for defamation under Maine","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"law. The plaintiffs challenged the Aquarium's statements","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"recommending that consumers avoid eating American lobster because","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"lobster fishing poses a risk to the endangered North Atlantic right","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"whale, even though those statements did not single them out in","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"particular. The Aquarium moved to dismiss the case, arguing that","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"the group defamation rule barred the plaintiffs' claims. The","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"district court denied its request, concluding that the Aquarium's","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"statements applied equally to each member of the Maine lobster","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"industry. We disagree with the district court's application of","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"the group defamation rule and thus reverse.","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"I. BACKGROUND","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"A. Relevant Facts1","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"The Maine lobster industry \"employs more than 5,600","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"lobstermen,\"2 and in 2021 alone the fishery \"hauled in more than","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"1 We take the facts from the plaintiffs' complaint.","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"2 Like the district court, we adopt the parties' use of","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"\"lobstermen\" to refer to all people holding commercial licenses to","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"- 4 -","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"80% of the country's lobster landings.\" At the center of the Maine","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"lobster industry is the Gulf of Maine, which shares a lobster stock","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"with the adjoining Georges Bank region of the Northwest Atlantic","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"Ocean. That is, the Maine lobster industry \"targets\" lobster stock","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"in that region. Lobster fishing in the coastal waters of Maine","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"\"is subject to strict regulations that ensure resource and","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"environmental sustainability.\"","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"The five plaintiffs in this case play important roles in","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"the Maine lobster industry. They are (1) Bean Maine Lobster, Inc.,","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"a company that \"markets and sells high-quality mid-coast","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"Maine-caught lobster and lobster foods\"; (2) the Maine","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"Lobstermen's Association, Inc., a nonprofit \"that represents","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"roughly 1,200 of Maine's 5,600 lobstermen\"; (3) the Maine Coast","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"Fishermen's Association, Inc., a nonprofit \"that works to enhance","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"the sustainability of Maine's fisheries\" and \"advocat[es] for the","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"needs of community-based fishermen\"; (4) Maine Lobster and","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"Processing, LLC, \"a third-generation Maine lobster company","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"and . . . one of the leading lobster producers in the United","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"States\"; and (5) Bug Catcher, Inc., \"a lobster fishing company\" in","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"Maine run by \"a sixth-generation lobsterman.\"","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"harvest lobster. Bean Me. Lobster, Inc. v. Monterey Bay Aquarium","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"Found., No. 23-cv-129, 2025 WL 416436, at *3 n.1 (D. Me. Feb. 6,","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"2025).","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"- 5 -","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"The Aquarium is a nonprofit conservation and education","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"organization based in California. It operates a program called","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"Seafood Watch, which assigns ratings to different species of","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"seafood, including lobster, \"based on environmental impact and","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"sustainability.\" A \"green\" rating signifies that the seafood is","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"the \"best choice.\" A \"yellow\" rating indicates that the seafood","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"is a \"good alternative.\" A \"red\" rating, by contrast, means that","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"consumers should \"avoid\" the seafood because it \"comes from sources","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"that don't align with [Seafood Watch's] guiding principles.\" In","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"assigning ratings, the Aquarium considers the effects of seafood","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"consumption and fishing practices on endangered species. Through","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"its Seafood Watch program, the Aquarium aims to influence the","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"decisions of seafood consumers, businesses, and regulators.","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"For many years, the Aquarium has raised concerns about","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"the impact of fishing on the North Atlantic right whale, which is","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"found primarily in the waters of the North Atlantic Ocean. The","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"North Atlantic right whale is listed as an endangered species under","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"the Endangered Species Act and is protected under the Marine Mammal","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"Protection Act. According to the Aquarium, one threat to the North","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"Atlantic right whale is the risk of entanglement in fishing gear,","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"including the buoy lines lobstermen use to mark the placement of","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"their lobster traps.","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"\"[A] collaboration of fisheries, agencies, scientists,","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"lobstermen and environmental groups\" developed the Atlantic Large","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"- 6 -","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"Whale Take Reduction Plan (\"the Take Reduction Plan\") in 1997.","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"That Plan required implementation of \"innovative fishing practices","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"and gear deployment strategies designed to protect right whales.\"","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"In the years since, those efforts have been \"continuously updated","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"and improved.\" Adjustments to the Take Reduction Plan have focused","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"on reducing the risk of whale entanglement in commercial fishing","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"gear, including lobster trap buoy lines. From 1997 to 2011, the","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"North Atlantic right whale population increased from 295 whales to","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"a high of 481.","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"In 2014, the Aquarium's Seafood Watch program assigned","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"a yellow rating to Maine lobster, recommending that consumers and","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"businesses \"[b]uy, but be aware there are concerns with how","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"[lobsters are] caught, farmed or managed.\" A few years later, in","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"2017, the National Marine Fisheries Service detected an \"unusual","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"rate of mortalities\" that reduced the North Atlantic right whale","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"population to only about 350 whales.","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"In the last decade, the Maine lobster industry has","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"implemented \"even more changes to its fishing practices to protect","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"right whales.\" For example, modifications to the Take Reduction","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"Plan in 2021 \"decreased the amount of rope in the water, created","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"more exacting requirements for weak links, weak rope and","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"break-aways to weaken vertical fishing lines, and closed nearly","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"1,000 square miles of fishing grounds for an entire season each","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"year.\"","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"- 7 -","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"Nevertheless, in September 2022, the Aquarium issued a","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"press release (\"the Press Release\"), announcing that it had","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"\"assign[ed] red ratings to certain Canadian and U.S. fisheries\" in","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"light of the \"dire risk to the endangered North Atlantic right","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"whale\" posed by the fisheries. The Press Release stated that the","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"red ratings were based on \"significant risks of entanglement in","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"pot, trap, and gillnet fisheries to the endangered North Atlantic","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"right whale and the lack of timely, effective management necessary","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"to mitigate entanglement risks and promote recovery of the","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"species.\"","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"The day after announcing that it was assigning these new","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"red ratings, the Aquarium's Seafood Watch program published the","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"73-page report at issue in this case (\"the Report\"), detailing its","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"recommendations regarding the fishing and consumption of American","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"lobster. In the Report, the Aquarium downgraded the rating of","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"American lobster from yellow to red. It recommended that consumers","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"\"[a]void American lobster caught by trap from Georges Bank and the","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"Gulf of Maine stocks due to risks to the critically endangered","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"North Atlantic right whale and insufficient measures for reducing","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"these risks.\" It emphasized that, \"[d]ue to a lack of information,","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"it is often not possible to assign entanglements to a specific","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"fishery.\" Thus, the Aquarium concluded that \"[u]ntil there is","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"more specific information available regarding which fisheries are","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"responsible for the unattributed entanglements[,] . . . all","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"- 8 -","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"relevant fisheries that may overlap with [the North Atlantic right","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"whale] pose risks.\" Further, the Aquarium commented on the","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"ineffectiveness of management efforts and the Take Reduction Plan,","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"asserting that they \"have not been successful at reducing serious","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"injury and mortality to the North Atlantic right whale.\"","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"In the Report, the Aquarium did not identify by name any","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"of the plaintiffs or any other individual, association, or company","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"involved in the Maine lobster industry. Still, the plaintiffs","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"allege that they lost substantial business following the","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"publication of the Report. For instance, the owner of Bug Catcher,","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"Inc. estimates that he has lost about 20% of his business since","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"the Aquarium issued its \"red\" rating. And in one instance, a major","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"customer of Maine Lobster and Processing, LLC specifically cited","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"the \"red\" rating when it announced that it would no longer be","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"purchasing lobster from the Gulf of Maine.","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"B. Procedural History","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"The plaintiffs eventually sued the Aquarium for","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"defamation based on its statements about the Maine lobster","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"industry, including statements made in the Press Release and the","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"Report. They filed their lawsuit in March 2023 in the U.S.","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"District Court for the District of Maine.","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"In their complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"Aquarium \"knowingly and intentionally published false and","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"injurious statements disparaging [their] products and business,","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"- 9 -","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"including, among other things, that commercial lobster fishing","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"practices in the Gulf of Maine cause death and serious injury to","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"North Atlantic right whales.\" The plaintiffs challenge the","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"following statements by the Aquarium (\"the Statements\")3:","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"(a) \"At this time, each fishery using this","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"gear is putting this protected species [i.e.,","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"the right whale] at risk of extinction.\"","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"(b) \"No one wants to know their appetite for","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"seafood is driving a species to extinction.\"","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"(c) \"Seafood rated Avoid comes from sources","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"that don't align with our guiding principles.","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"The seafood is caught or farmed in ways that","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"[have a high risk of causing] harm [to","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"wildlife] or the environment. There's a","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"critical conservation concern or many issues","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"need substantial improvement.\"","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"(d) \"[M]anagement measures and the Atlantic","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"Large Whale Take Reduction Plan have not been","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"successful at reducing serious injury and","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"mortality to the North Atlantic right whale.\"","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"(e) \"Based on the available information and","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"the significant risks to [the North Atlantic","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"right whale], the American lobster fishery","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"cannot be considered sustainable.\"","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"(f) \"The updated assessments highlight","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"significant risks of entanglement in pot,","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"trap, and gillnet fisheries to the endangered","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"North Atlantic right whale and the lack of","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"timely, effective management necessary to","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"mitigate entanglement risks and promote","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"recovery of the species.\"","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"(g) \"Seafood Watch reviewed all available","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"scientific data, including the latest stock","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"assessments as well as state, federal, and","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"3 We indicate with highlighting where plaintiffs only","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"challenge a portion of a sentence as defamatory.","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"- 10 -","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"provincial management measures.\" And \"[t]he","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"14 assessments released today are part of","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"Seafood Watch's rigorous, transparent,","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"science-based process to evaluate the current","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"environmental performance of a fishery.\"4","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"(h) \"According to Seafood Watch standards,","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"when fisheries pose a high risk of harm to","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"marine life or the environment and appropriate","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"management measures are not in place, they are","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"assigned a red rating.\"","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"(i) \"Avoid/Red: Take a pass on [seafood","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"receiving this rating] for now; they're caught","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"or farmed in ways that harm other marine life","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"or the environment.\"","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"Some of these statements appear in the Press Release.","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"Others appear in the Report. Still others do not appear in either","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"document.5","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"Two months after the plaintiffs sued, the Aquarium filed","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"a motion to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. In its motion,","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"the Aquarium argued that the Statements were (1) about the Gulf of","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"Maine/Georges Bank area lobster industry at large, not \"of and","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"concerning\" the plaintiffs specifically, and (2) non-actionable","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"scientific opinion, rather than defamatory assertions of fact. In","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"4 These statements do not appear together in the Press","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"Release.","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"5 We assume that the Aquarium made these statements elsewhere","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"because we are bound to accept as true all well-pleaded factual","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"allegations in the plaintiffs' complaint in analyzing a denial of","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"a motion to dismiss. See Maldonado v. Fontanes, 568 F.3d 263, 266","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"(1st Cir. 2009).","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"- 11 -","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"the alternative, the Aquarium sought dismissal under Maine's","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"anti-SLAPP statute,6 arguing that the Statements constituted","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"protected petitioning activity.7","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"The district court denied the Aquarium's motion to","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"dismiss. See Bean Me. Lobster, Inc. v. Monterey Bay Aquarium","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"Found., No. 23-cv-129, 2025 WL 416436, at *59 (D. Me. Feb. 6,","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"2025). The court first concluded that the plaintiffs had \"carried","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"their burden of defeating [the Aquarium's] motion\" under Maine's","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"anti-SLAPP statute. Id. at *43. It then determined that the","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"plaintiffs had stated a claim for defamation by adequately alleging","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"that the Aquarium's statements were (1) \"reasonably understood as","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"6 SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"Participation. Maine's anti-SLAPP statute at the time, 14 M.R.S.","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"§ 556 (repealed 2025), was \"designed to guard against meritless","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"lawsuits brought with the intention of chilling or deterring the","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"free exercise of the defendant's First Amendment right to petition","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"the government.\" Schelling v. Lindell, 942 A.2d 1226, 1229 (Me.","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"2008). Under the statute, defendants could file a \"special motion","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"to dismiss\" in order to \"minimize the litigation costs associated","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"with the defense of such meritless suits.\" 14 M.R.S. § 556. The","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"Maine legislature has since replaced that statute with a more","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"comprehensive anti-SLAPP statute. See 2023 Me. Laws 1404.","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"7 The Aquarium also contended that the plaintiffs had not","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"adequately alleged other elements of a defamation claim.","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"Separately, the Aquarium sought dismissal for lack of personal","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"jurisdiction or, in the alternative, transfer of venue. The","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"district court found it had personal jurisdiction and denied the","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"motion to transfer; it further ruled that the plaintiffs had","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"sufficiently alleged that the Aquarium acted with actual malice","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"when publishing the challenged statements. The Aquarium does not","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"appeal these rulings.","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"- 12 -","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"'of and concerning' them\" and (2) actionable assertions of fact.","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"Id. at *49; see id. at *53.","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"In its ruling, the district court acknowledged the group","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"defamation rule, which typically precludes plaintiffs from","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"establishing that a defamatory statement was \"of and concerning\"","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"them when the statement in question was directed at a group as a","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"whole. See id. at *45. But the court concluded that the","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"plaintiffs' claims fell under an exception to the rule, set out in","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"the Second Restatement of Torts, which applies when \"the","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"circumstances of publication reasonably give rise to the","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"conclusion that there is particular reference to [a] member [of","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"the group].\" Id. at *45-47 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"§ 564A(b) (A.L.I. 1977)).","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"Specifically, the district court determined that the","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"\"letter and spirit of the group defamation rule\" did not apply for","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"four reasons: First, \"the industry-wide nature of the Statements","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"necessarily implicated each and every member of the Plaintiff","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"group.\" Id. at *47-48. Second, the Statements were not \"the type","paragraph_id":"para_295"},{"text":"of hyperbolic statements that undergird the group defamation rule\"","paragraph_id":"para_296"},{"text":"but instead \"purported to be based upon scientific data.\" Id. at","paragraph_id":"para_297"},{"text":"*48. Third, the Statements \"included a call to action\" directing","paragraph_id":"para_298"},{"text":"consumers to avoid purchasing American lobster. Id. Fourth, and","paragraph_id":"para_299"},{"text":"finally, certain of the plaintiffs' customers had specifically","paragraph_id":"para_300"},{"text":"- 13 -","paragraph_id":"para_301"},{"text":"referenced the Report as influencing their decision to stop","paragraph_id":"para_302"},{"text":"purchasing the plaintiffs' lobster. Id.","paragraph_id":"para_303"},{"text":"The Aquarium timely appealed the denial of its","paragraph_id":"para_304"},{"text":"anti-SLAPP motion under the collateral order doctrine.","paragraph_id":"para_305"},{"text":"Separately, it moved for certification of an interlocutory appeal","paragraph_id":"para_306"},{"text":"under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) to enable review of the district court's","paragraph_id":"para_307"},{"text":"order denying dismissal of the plaintiffs' defamation claim,","paragraph_id":"para_308"},{"text":"including its application of the group defamation rule. The","paragraph_id":"para_309"},{"text":"district court granted the motion for interlocutory appeal, and we","paragraph_id":"para_310"},{"text":"in turn granted the Aquarium's petition and consolidated the two","paragraph_id":"para_311"},{"text":"appeals.","paragraph_id":"para_312"},{"text":"II. STANDARD OF REVIEW","paragraph_id":"para_313"},{"text":"We review de novo a district court's denial of a motion","paragraph_id":"para_314"},{"text":"to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). See First Med. Health Plan, Inc.","paragraph_id":"para_315"},{"text":"v. Vega-Ramos, 479 F.3d 46, 51 (1st Cir. 2007). In doing so, \"[w]e","paragraph_id":"para_316"},{"text":"accept as true the complaint's well-pleaded factual allegations,","paragraph_id":"para_317"},{"text":"and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the\" plaintiffs as","paragraph_id":"para_318"},{"text":"the non-moving parties. McKee v. Cosby, 874 F.3d 54, 59 (1st Cir.","paragraph_id":"para_319"},{"text":"2017).","paragraph_id":"para_320"},{"text":"III. DISCUSSION","paragraph_id":"para_321"},{"text":"The Aquarium contests multiple aspects of the district","paragraph_id":"para_322"},{"text":"court's ruling denying its motion to dismiss. Because we agree","paragraph_id":"para_323"},{"text":"with the Aquarium that the group defamation rule bars the","paragraph_id":"para_324"},{"text":"plaintiffs' claims, we do not reach its other arguments.","paragraph_id":"para_325"},{"text":"- 14 -","paragraph_id":"para_326"},{"text":"For starters, \"[a]s a federal court sitting in diversity","paragraph_id":"para_327"},{"text":"jurisdiction, we look to [Maine] law for the substantive rules of","paragraph_id":"para_328"},{"text":"decision governing\" the plaintiffs' state-law defamation claim.8","paragraph_id":"para_329"},{"text":"Blakesley v. Marcus, 158 F.4th 90, 95 (1st Cir. 2025) (citation","paragraph_id":"para_330"},{"text":"modified) (quoting Smith v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 88 F.4th","paragraph_id":"para_331"},{"text":"40, 47 (1st Cir. 2023)). As the district court observed, however,","paragraph_id":"para_332"},{"text":"there is limited precedent from Maine courts on the scope of the","paragraph_id":"para_333"},{"text":"exceptions to the group defamation rule. Bean Me. Lobster, Inc.,","paragraph_id":"para_334"},{"text":"2025 WL 416436, at *46. Thus, we must \"endeavor to predict how","paragraph_id":"para_335"},{"text":"[Maine's] highest court would rule on\" the legal questions before","paragraph_id":"para_336"},{"text":"us. Blakesley, 158 F.4th at 95 (citation modified) (quoting","paragraph_id":"para_337"},{"text":"Lawrence Gen. Hosp. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 90 F.4th 593, 598 (1st","paragraph_id":"para_338"},{"text":"Cir. 2024)). And as \"it is quintessentially the province of state","paragraph_id":"para_339"},{"text":"courts to extend state law,\" we should \"exercise considerable","paragraph_id":"para_340"},{"text":"caution\" before adopting a novel application of Maine law. Id. at","paragraph_id":"para_341"},{"text":"100 (citation modified) (first quoting Markham v. Fay, 74 F.3d","paragraph_id":"para_342"},{"text":"1347, 1356 (1st Cir. 1996); and then quoting Doyle v. Hasbro, Inc.,","paragraph_id":"para_343"},{"text":"103 F.3d 186, 192 (1st Cir. 1996)).","paragraph_id":"para_344"},{"text":"With that in mind, we trace the history and rationale of","paragraph_id":"para_345"},{"text":"the group defamation rule and the contours of its exceptions. We","paragraph_id":"para_346"},{"text":"then apply those principles to the facts set out in the complaint","paragraph_id":"para_347"},{"text":"and conclude that the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (\"the Law","paragraph_id":"para_348"},{"text":"8 The district court had jurisdiction to consider the","paragraph_id":"para_349"},{"text":"plaintiffs' state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).","paragraph_id":"para_350"},{"text":"- 15 -","paragraph_id":"para_351"},{"text":"Court\") would hold that the group defamation rule bars the","paragraph_id":"para_352"},{"text":"plaintiffs' claims.","paragraph_id":"para_353"},{"text":"A. The Group Defamation Rule and Its Exceptions","paragraph_id":"para_354"},{"text":"To maintain an action for defamation under Maine law, a","paragraph_id":"para_355"},{"text":"plaintiff must establish that the alleged defamatory statement was","paragraph_id":"para_356"},{"text":"\"of and concerning\" them. See Hudson v. Guy Gannett Broad. Co.,","paragraph_id":"para_357"},{"text":"521 A.2d 714, 716 (Me. 1987). When a statement defames a large","paragraph_id":"para_358"},{"text":"group of which the plaintiff is a member, courts have generally","paragraph_id":"para_359"},{"text":"concluded that the plaintiff cannot satisfy the \"of and concerning\"","paragraph_id":"para_360"},{"text":"element by virtue of the common-law principle known as the group","paragraph_id":"para_361"},{"text":"defamation rule. Under this rule, \"[d]efamation of a large group","paragraph_id":"para_362"},{"text":"gives rise to no civil action on the part of an individual member","paragraph_id":"para_363"},{"text":"of the group unless he can show special application of the","paragraph_id":"para_364"},{"text":"defamatory matter to himself.\" Arcand v. Evening Call Publ'g Co.,","paragraph_id":"para_365"},{"text":"567 F.2d 1163, 1164 (1st Cir. 1977) (quoting Joseph Tanenhaus,","paragraph_id":"para_366"},{"text":"Group Libel, 35 Cornell L.Q. 261, 263 (1950)).","paragraph_id":"para_367"},{"text":"The group defamation rule predates our Constitution.","paragraph_id":"para_368"},{"text":"See R v. Alme & Nott (1699) 91 Eng. Rep. 790; 3 Salk. 224 (KB)","paragraph_id":"para_369"},{"text":"(per curiam). And since the 1800s, courts have justified the rule,","paragraph_id":"para_370"},{"text":"in part, based on the concern that affording every member of a","paragraph_id":"para_371"},{"text":"large group a cause of action would threaten to stifle \"free","paragraph_id":"para_372"},{"text":"discussion\" beneath an avalanche of \"embittered and boundless","paragraph_id":"para_373"},{"text":"- 16 -","paragraph_id":"para_374"},{"text":"litigation.\"9 Ryckman v. Delavan, 25 Wend. 186, 199 (N.Y. 1840).","paragraph_id":"para_375"},{"text":"As the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia","paragraph_id":"para_376"},{"text":"described in an early case, \"courts have chosen not to limit freedom","paragraph_id":"para_377"},{"text":"of public discussion except to prevent harm occasioned by","paragraph_id":"para_378"},{"text":"defamatory statements reasonably susceptible of special","paragraph_id":"para_379"},{"text":"application to a given individual.\" Serv. Parking Corp. v. Wash.","paragraph_id":"para_380"},{"text":"Times Co., 92 F.2d 502, 505-06 (D.C. Cir. 1937); see also Dan B.","paragraph_id":"para_381"},{"text":"Dobbs, Paul T. Hayden & Ellen M. Bublick, The Law of Torts § 531","paragraph_id":"para_382"},{"text":"(2d ed. 2011) (explaining the rationales for the group defamation","paragraph_id":"para_383"},{"text":"rule).","paragraph_id":"para_384"},{"text":"The modern understanding of the group defamation rule is","paragraph_id":"para_385"},{"text":"set out in the Second Restatement of Torts. Because the Law Court","paragraph_id":"para_386"},{"text":"has adopted the Second Restatement's approach to other aspects of","paragraph_id":"para_387"},{"text":"defamation law, we predict (and the plaintiffs agree) that the Law","paragraph_id":"para_388"},{"text":"Court would adopt its approach to the group defamation rule as","paragraph_id":"para_389"},{"text":"well. See Hudson, 521 A.2d at 717 (adopting the \"'of and","paragraph_id":"para_390"},{"text":"concerning' requirement\" set out in the Second Restatement).","paragraph_id":"para_391"},{"text":"Specifically, § 564A of the Second Restatement states:","paragraph_id":"para_392"},{"text":"One who publishes defamatory matter concerning","paragraph_id":"para_393"},{"text":"a group or class of persons is subject to","paragraph_id":"para_394"},{"text":"liability to an individual member of it if,","paragraph_id":"para_395"},{"text":"but only if,","paragraph_id":"para_396"},{"text":"(a) the group or class is so small that","paragraph_id":"para_397"},{"text":"the matter can reasonably be understood","paragraph_id":"para_398"},{"text":"to refer to the member, or","paragraph_id":"para_399"},{"text":"9 This public policy rationale is distinct from the","paragraph_id":"para_400"},{"text":"constitutional question of whether such \"free discussion\" is","paragraph_id":"para_401"},{"text":"protected under the First Amendment.","paragraph_id":"para_402"},{"text":"- 17 -","paragraph_id":"para_403"},{"text":"(b) the circumstances of publication","paragraph_id":"para_404"},{"text":"reasonably give rise to the conclusion","paragraph_id":"para_405"},{"text":"that there is particular reference to the","paragraph_id":"para_406"},{"text":"member.","paragraph_id":"para_407"},{"text":"Restatement (Second) of Torts § 564A (emphasis added).","paragraph_id":"para_408"},{"text":"The group defamation rule, as articulated in the Second","paragraph_id":"para_409"},{"text":"Restatement, thus consists of a general principle -- \"no action","paragraph_id":"para_410"},{"text":"lies for the publication of defamatory words concerning a large","paragraph_id":"para_411"},{"text":"group or class of persons\" -- with two exceptions. Id. cmt. a.","paragraph_id":"para_412"},{"text":"The first is the \"small-group exception,\" which typically applies","paragraph_id":"para_413"},{"text":"to groups of \"25 or fewer\" people. Id. cmt. b. Because the","paragraph_id":"para_414"},{"text":"Statements here described the activities of some 5,600 lobstermen","paragraph_id":"para_415"},{"text":"in Maine alone, the district court found that the small-group","paragraph_id":"para_416"},{"text":"exception did not apply, and the plaintiffs have not argued","paragraph_id":"para_417"},{"text":"otherwise on appeal. Bean Me. Lobster, Inc., 2025 WL 416436, at","paragraph_id":"para_418"},{"text":"*47. Still, we discuss the principles underlying the small-group","paragraph_id":"para_419"},{"text":"exception because they are important to our overall analysis.","paragraph_id":"para_420"},{"text":"The theory behind the small-group exception is","paragraph_id":"para_421"},{"text":"straightforward. As the Second Restatement explains it, when a","paragraph_id":"para_422"},{"text":"\"sufficiently small\" group is defamed, \"the words may reasonably","paragraph_id":"para_423"},{"text":"be understood to have personal reference and application to any","paragraph_id":"para_424"},{"text":"member of\" the group. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 564A cmt. b.","paragraph_id":"para_425"},{"text":"- 18 -","paragraph_id":"para_426"},{"text":"The other exception is the \"particular-reference","paragraph_id":"para_427"},{"text":"exception.\"10 The linchpin of this exception is the requirement","paragraph_id":"para_428"},{"text":"of a particular reference to the plaintiff -- \"particular\" in the","paragraph_id":"para_429"},{"text":"sense of \"distinctive among other examples or cases of the same","paragraph_id":"para_430"},{"text":"general category.\" Particular, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate","paragraph_id":"para_431"},{"text":"Dictionary (10th ed. 1993). For many years, courts have concluded","paragraph_id":"para_432"},{"text":"that a defamatory statement that applies equally to every member","paragraph_id":"para_433"},{"text":"of a large group is not particular to the plaintiff. See Serv.","paragraph_id":"para_434"},{"text":"Parking Corp., 92 F.2d at 506 (claim failed under group defamation","paragraph_id":"para_435"},{"text":"rule for absence of evidence that statement was \"solely or","paragraph_id":"para_436"},{"text":"especially\" about plaintiff); Comes v. Cruce, 107 S.W. 185, 186","paragraph_id":"para_437"},{"text":"(Ark. 1908) (statement not actionable for lack of evidence that","paragraph_id":"para_438"},{"text":"\"the business of any individual, as distinct from a class, was","paragraph_id":"para_439"},{"text":"specified as being illegal\" (emphasis added)).","paragraph_id":"para_440"},{"text":"Two more recent cases illustrate the particular-","paragraph_id":"para_441"},{"text":"reference exception in action. In JB & Associates, Inc. v.","paragraph_id":"para_442"},{"text":"Nebraska Cancer Coalition, 932 N.W.2d 71 (Neb. 2019), a group of","paragraph_id":"para_443"},{"text":"tanning salons (representing nearly three-quarters of all such","paragraph_id":"para_444"},{"text":"salons in the Omaha and Lincoln markets) sued for defamation after","paragraph_id":"para_445"},{"text":"a Nebraska anti-cancer advocacy group launched a website to warn","paragraph_id":"para_446"},{"text":"about the dangers of tanning beds. See id. at 75-77. The allegedly","paragraph_id":"para_447"},{"text":"10 The district court referred to this as the \"circumstances-","paragraph_id":"para_448"},{"text":"of-publication\" exception. Bean Me. Lobster, Inc., 2025 WL 416436,","paragraph_id":"para_449"},{"text":"at *45. We use the \"particular-reference\" formulation to emphasize","paragraph_id":"para_450"},{"text":"what we view as the central inquiry required by the exception.","paragraph_id":"para_451"},{"text":"- 19 -","paragraph_id":"para_452"},{"text":"defamatory statements primarily consisted of assertions about the","paragraph_id":"para_453"},{"text":"tanning industry and the dangers of tanning, including statements","paragraph_id":"para_454"},{"text":"that \"[t]anning facilities do not require a license to operate in","paragraph_id":"para_455"},{"text":"Nebraska\" and that \"[j]ust one indoor tanning session increases","paragraph_id":"para_456"},{"text":"your risk of melanoma by 20%.\" Id. To support their claims, the","paragraph_id":"para_457"},{"text":"tanning salons offered evidence that customers who had visited the","paragraph_id":"para_458"},{"text":"advocacy group's website had asked salon staff about the safety of","paragraph_id":"para_459"},{"text":"indoor tanning. Id. at 77.","paragraph_id":"para_460"},{"text":"Although the challenged statements in JB & Associates","paragraph_id":"para_461"},{"text":"categorically described the operations of the entire Nebraska","paragraph_id":"para_462"},{"text":"tanning industry -- and thus necessarily described the plaintiffs'","paragraph_id":"para_463"},{"text":"facilities -- the Nebraska Supreme Court concluded that the","paragraph_id":"para_464"},{"text":"particular-reference exception was not met. See id. at 79-80","paragraph_id":"para_465"},{"text":"(applying Second Restatement). The court noted that nothing in","paragraph_id":"para_466"},{"text":"the statements or context \"implied that the statements were","paragraph_id":"para_467"},{"text":"targeted at\" the plaintiff salons rather than indoor tanning more","paragraph_id":"para_468"},{"text":"broadly, and it discounted the customer interactions because no","paragraph_id":"para_469"},{"text":"customers had indicated that \"they believed the statements were","paragraph_id":"para_470"},{"text":"about [plaintiffs' salons] specifically.\" Id. at 79 (emphasis","paragraph_id":"para_471"},{"text":"added).","paragraph_id":"para_472"},{"text":"By contrast, in Conformis, Inc. v. Aetna, Inc., 58 F.4th","paragraph_id":"para_473"},{"text":"517 (1st Cir. 2023), we applied the Second Restatement under","paragraph_id":"para_474"},{"text":"Massachusetts law and concluded that the particular-reference","paragraph_id":"para_475"},{"text":"exception was triggered such that the plaintiff's product","paragraph_id":"para_476"},{"text":"- 20 -","paragraph_id":"para_477"},{"text":"disparagement claim could proceed. See id. at 528-29, 530","paragraph_id":"para_478"},{"text":"(explaining that a disparagement claim has many of the same","paragraph_id":"para_479"},{"text":"elements as a defamation claim and applying the \"of and concerning\"","paragraph_id":"para_480"},{"text":"requirement from the defamation context). In that case, the","paragraph_id":"para_481"},{"text":"manufacturer of a total-knee-replacement (TKR) device sued Aetna","paragraph_id":"para_482"},{"text":"for product disparagement based on an updated policy document Aetna","paragraph_id":"para_483"},{"text":"had published. See id. at 525-28. The document set out Aetna's","paragraph_id":"para_484"},{"text":"decision to deny coverage for all customized TKR devices on the","paragraph_id":"para_485"},{"text":"basis that they were \"experimental and investigational because","paragraph_id":"para_486"},{"text":"[their] effectiveness has not been established.\" Id. at 526. We","paragraph_id":"para_487"},{"text":"noted that although the statement did not mention the plaintiff","paragraph_id":"para_488"},{"text":"manufacturer by name, the context left \"little doubt\" that the","paragraph_id":"para_489"},{"text":"insurer had \"intended the statement to refer to the\" manufacturer's","paragraph_id":"para_490"},{"text":"TKR device. Id. at 529. Further, third parties had understood","paragraph_id":"para_491"},{"text":"the policy statement to refer to the manufacturer's device:","paragraph_id":"para_492"},{"text":"\"[N]umerous orthopedic surgeons\" informed the plaintiff \"they","paragraph_id":"para_493"},{"text":"would no longer prescribe [the plaintiff's TKR] system because of","paragraph_id":"para_494"},{"text":"concerns that it would not be covered\" by Aetna. Id.","paragraph_id":"para_495"},{"text":"But the fact that Aetna's statement applied to the","paragraph_id":"para_496"},{"text":"plaintiff's device just because it was a TKR device, we explained,","paragraph_id":"para_497"},{"text":"did not satisfy the particular-reference exception: Because the","paragraph_id":"para_498"},{"text":"policy statement was directed at a large group (the wider group of","paragraph_id":"para_499"},{"text":"customized TKR devices), \"more [was] needed.\" Id. at 529-30. And","paragraph_id":"para_500"},{"text":"in Conformis, there was more. In the \"background\" section of the","paragraph_id":"para_501"},{"text":"- 21 -","paragraph_id":"para_502"},{"text":"policy statement, Aetna had dedicated an entire subsection to the","paragraph_id":"para_503"},{"text":"plaintiff's specific product -- the only TKR device \"singled out\"","paragraph_id":"para_504"},{"text":"in that way. Id. at 530. We held that this specific reference to","paragraph_id":"para_505"},{"text":"the plaintiff's product -- and not any other product -- could lead","paragraph_id":"para_506"},{"text":"a reasonable reader to conclude \"that the Policy statement made","paragraph_id":"para_507"},{"text":"particular reference to\" the plaintiff. Id.","paragraph_id":"para_508"},{"text":"JB & Associates and Conformis are just two illustrations","paragraph_id":"para_509"},{"text":"of a fundamental principle: The fact that a statement may apply to","paragraph_id":"para_510"},{"text":"every member of a large group is not enough to trigger the","paragraph_id":"para_511"},{"text":"particular-reference exception. As one court put it, \"evidence","paragraph_id":"para_512"},{"text":"that others 'understood'\" a statement directed at a large group to","paragraph_id":"para_513"},{"text":"refer to a plaintiff \"based solely upon [the] plaintiff's","paragraph_id":"para_514"},{"text":"membership in the referenced group will not satisfy the 'of and","paragraph_id":"para_515"},{"text":"concerning' requirement\" under the group defamation rule. Dean v.","paragraph_id":"para_516"},{"text":"Dearing, 561 S.E.2d 686, 689 (Va. 2002) (so holding after","paragraph_id":"para_517"},{"text":"concluding on First Amendment grounds that the plaintiffs, as","paragraph_id":"para_518"},{"text":"government officials, could not invoke the small-group exception,","paragraph_id":"para_519"},{"text":"see id. at 688-89); see also, e.g., Gintert v. Howard Publ'ns,","paragraph_id":"para_520"},{"text":"Inc., 565 F. Supp. 829, 831-33 (N.D. Ind. 1983) (applying the","paragraph_id":"para_521"},{"text":"Second Restatement test and holding that members of a group of 165","paragraph_id":"para_522"},{"text":"property owners could not sue for defamation over news articles","paragraph_id":"para_523"},{"text":"about environmental contamination on their property given \"the","paragraph_id":"para_524"},{"text":"- 22 -","paragraph_id":"para_525"},{"text":"absence of anything in the articles\" identifying any of the","paragraph_id":"para_526"},{"text":"plaintiffs as \"targets\" of the reporting).11","paragraph_id":"para_527"},{"text":"The plaintiffs point to Ball v. Taylor, but that decision","paragraph_id":"para_528"},{"text":"does not flout this critical principle. In Ball, the U.S. Court","paragraph_id":"para_529"},{"text":"of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit allowed about 100 employees to","paragraph_id":"para_530"},{"text":"sue over a statement that they had committed disability fraud (to","paragraph_id":"para_531"},{"text":"our knowledge, the largest group defamation claim ever permitted),","paragraph_id":"para_532"},{"text":"but the statement was accompanied by a document that specifically","paragraph_id":"para_533"},{"text":"identified each individual employee by name and address. See 416","paragraph_id":"para_534"},{"text":"F.3d 915, 916-18 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam).12 The plaintiffs","paragraph_id":"para_535"},{"text":"11 See also Dobbs et al., supra, § 531 (\"[I]ndividual members","paragraph_id":"para_536"},{"text":"of the [large] group are likewise denied relief","paragraph_id":"para_537"},{"text":"unless . . . particular individuals can be reasonably understood","paragraph_id":"para_538"},{"text":"as the individual targets of the defamation.\" (emphasis added));","paragraph_id":"para_539"},{"text":"8A Alfred W. Gans et al., American Law of Torts § 29:49 (Feb. 2026","paragraph_id":"para_540"},{"text":"update) (\"[U]nless a particular application can be shown to","paragraph_id":"para_541"},{"text":"oneself, no member of a large group or class, by virtue of","paragraph_id":"para_542"},{"text":"defamatory words assertedly spoken concerning the group or class,","paragraph_id":"para_543"},{"text":"can maintain an action for libel or slander.\" (second emphasis","paragraph_id":"para_544"},{"text":"added)). But see 1 Rodney A. Smolla, Law of Defamation § 4:70","paragraph_id":"para_545"},{"text":"(May 2026 update) (asserting that \"when all members of the class","paragraph_id":"para_546"},{"text":"are defamed . . . group size no longer matters\" and citing Bean","paragraph_id":"para_547"},{"text":"Me. Lobster, 2025 WL 416436, as a \"powerful[] demonstrat[ion]\" of","paragraph_id":"para_548"},{"text":"such a rule). We note that Professor Smolla's analysis relies on","paragraph_id":"para_549"},{"text":"Fawcett Publications, Inc. v. Morris, 377 P.2d 42 (Okla. 1962),","paragraph_id":"para_550"},{"text":"and Florio v. Gallaudet University, 119 F.4th 67 (D.C. Cir. 2024).","paragraph_id":"para_551"},{"text":"As we explain in Section III.B, infra, Fawcett does not follow the","paragraph_id":"para_552"},{"text":"Second Restatement approach. And Florio held (in dicta, because","paragraph_id":"para_553"},{"text":"the statements were protected opinion) only that the group","paragraph_id":"para_554"},{"text":"defamation rule did not bar the defamation claims of particular","paragraph_id":"para_555"},{"text":"fraternity members depicted in a photograph published with the","paragraph_id":"para_556"},{"text":"defamatory statements about that fraternity. See 119 F.4th at 73-","paragraph_id":"para_557"},{"text":"77.","paragraph_id":"para_558"},{"text":"12 Every other case cited by the plaintiffs in which a court","paragraph_id":"para_559"},{"text":"concluded that the particular-reference exception set out in the","paragraph_id":"para_560"},{"text":"- 23 -","paragraph_id":"para_561"},{"text":"have not pointed to, and we have not found, any case applying the","paragraph_id":"para_562"},{"text":"rule set out in the Second Restatement that ignores this principle.","paragraph_id":"para_563"},{"text":"Finally, we are mindful that -- as the Aquarium and","paragraph_id":"para_564"},{"text":"amici point out -- a broad reading of the \"of and concerning\"","paragraph_id":"para_565"},{"text":"requirement may raise constitutional concerns to the extent that","paragraph_id":"para_566"},{"text":"it deters speech on public matters. See, e.g., Emerito Estrada","paragraph_id":"para_567"},{"text":"Rivera-Isuzu de P.R., Inc. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., 233","paragraph_id":"para_568"},{"text":"F.3d 24, 28 (1st Cir. 2000). \"[S]peech on public issues occupies","paragraph_id":"para_569"},{"text":"the 'highest rung of the h[ie]rarchy of First Amendment values.'\"","paragraph_id":"para_570"},{"text":"Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 145 (1983) (quoting NAACP v.","paragraph_id":"para_571"},{"text":"Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 913 (1982)).","paragraph_id":"para_572"},{"text":"The plaintiffs do not dispute that speech critical of","paragraph_id":"para_573"},{"text":"industry practices frequently raises issues of public concern.","paragraph_id":"para_574"},{"text":"Second Restatement was met aligns with this principle. For","paragraph_id":"para_575"},{"text":"example, in Church of Scientology International v. Time Warner,","paragraph_id":"para_576"},{"text":"Inc., the court applied the Second Restatement and explained that","paragraph_id":"para_577"},{"text":"the particular-reference exception required it to decide:","paragraph_id":"para_578"},{"text":"(1) whether a reference to \"Scientology\" in an allegedly","paragraph_id":"para_579"},{"text":"defamatory statement was a \"direct[] or implied[]\" reference to","paragraph_id":"para_580"},{"text":"the specific \"Mother Church\" entity at the top of the church","paragraph_id":"para_581"},{"text":"hierarchy; (2) if so, whether that reference to the Mother Church","paragraph_id":"para_582"},{"text":"\"arose solely from its status as one of the numerous entities that","paragraph_id":"para_583"},{"text":"constitute the Church of Scientology, thus implicating the [group","paragraph_id":"para_584"},{"text":"defamation rule]\"; and (3) if so, \"whether [the Mother Church] was","paragraph_id":"para_585"},{"text":"referred to in any particular way so as to\" meet the exception.","paragraph_id":"para_586"},{"text":"806 F. Supp. 1157, 1159, 1160 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (emphasis added),","paragraph_id":"para_587"},{"text":"aff'd sub nom. Church of Scientology Int'l v. Behar, 238 F.3d 168","paragraph_id":"para_588"},{"text":"(2d Cir. 2001). The court concluded that such a particular","paragraph_id":"para_589"},{"text":"reference existed because, among other things, the allegedly","paragraph_id":"para_590"},{"text":"defamatory article included a photo of the Mother Church","paragraph_id":"para_591"},{"text":"headquarters and referred to \"the Los Angeles-based church\" -- the","paragraph_id":"para_592"},{"text":"city where the Mother Church headquarters was located. Id. at","paragraph_id":"para_593"},{"text":"1161, 1163 (citation modified).","paragraph_id":"para_594"},{"text":"- 24 -","paragraph_id":"para_595"},{"text":"And speech critical of industry practices is frequently met with","paragraph_id":"para_596"},{"text":"defamation suits. See, e.g., Tex. Beef Grp. v. Winfrey, 11 F.","paragraph_id":"para_597"},{"text":"Supp. 2d 858, 863-64 (N.D. Tex. 1998), aff'd, 201 F.3d 680 (5th","paragraph_id":"para_598"},{"text":"Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (speech critical of beef industry);","paragraph_id":"para_599"},{"text":"Schuster v. U.S. News & World Rep., Inc., 602 F.2d 850, 851 (8th","paragraph_id":"para_600"},{"text":"Cir. 1979) (speech critical of vitamin supplement industry). Thus,","paragraph_id":"para_601"},{"text":"although we do not decide this appeal on constitutional grounds,","paragraph_id":"para_602"},{"text":"First Amendment principles counsel against an expansive reading of","paragraph_id":"para_603"},{"text":"the particular-reference exception.","paragraph_id":"para_604"},{"text":"B. The Aquarium's Statements Are Not Actionable Under the Group","paragraph_id":"para_605"},{"text":"Defamation Rule","paragraph_id":"para_606"},{"text":"The parties agree that the group defamation rule applies","paragraph_id":"para_607"},{"text":"here such that the Statements are not actionable unless the","paragraph_id":"para_608"},{"text":"particular-reference exception is satisfied. The parties also","paragraph_id":"para_609"},{"text":"agree that, as the district court pointed out, each Statement is","paragraph_id":"para_610"},{"text":"directed at the American lobster fishery writ large, which covers","paragraph_id":"para_611"},{"text":"more than 5,600 lobstermen in Maine alone. See Bean Me. Lobster,","paragraph_id":"para_612"},{"text":"Inc., 2025 WL 416436, at *47. And the plaintiffs do not allege","paragraph_id":"para_613"},{"text":"that the Statements contain an explicit reference to any of them","paragraph_id":"para_614"},{"text":"individually.","paragraph_id":"para_615"},{"text":"The plaintiffs insist, however, that the group","paragraph_id":"para_616"},{"text":"defamation rule should not bar their claims. They rest on one","paragraph_id":"para_617"},{"text":"main point in making this argument: that the Statements' factual","paragraph_id":"para_618"},{"text":"nature, including the claim that the type of fishing gear used by","paragraph_id":"para_619"},{"text":"- 25 -","paragraph_id":"para_620"},{"text":"the plaintiffs endangers the North Atlantic right whale, means","paragraph_id":"para_621"},{"text":"that the Statements necessarily apply to every member of the","paragraph_id":"para_622"},{"text":"fishery.13 Thus, they contend, the Statements are materially","paragraph_id":"para_623"},{"text":"different from the hyperbole usually lobbed at entire industries","paragraph_id":"para_624"},{"text":"that are subject to critique, and for that reason, the district","paragraph_id":"para_625"},{"text":"court was correct to permit their claims to proceed.14","paragraph_id":"para_626"},{"text":"To be sure, many cases barring claims against large","paragraph_id":"para_627"},{"text":"groups based on the group defamation rule involve hyperbolic","paragraph_id":"para_628"},{"text":"statements. See, e.g., Loeb v. Globe Newspaper Co., 489 F. Supp.","paragraph_id":"para_629"},{"text":"481, 483 (D. Mass. 1980) (statement that editorial staff and","paragraph_id":"para_630"},{"text":"readers of newspaper were \"paranoids\"); see also Restatement","paragraph_id":"para_631"},{"text":"(Second) of Torts § 564A cmt. a (giving as examples the Psalmist's","paragraph_id":"para_632"},{"text":"declaration that \"[a]ll men are liars\" and a hypothetical statement","paragraph_id":"para_633"},{"text":"13 We acknowledge the plaintiffs' assertion in their brief","paragraph_id":"para_634"},{"text":"that they \"do not base their defamation claim merely on their","paragraph_id":"para_635"},{"text":"membership in an industry.\" At oral argument, however, the only","paragraph_id":"para_636"},{"text":"other evidence that they cited in support of their contention that","paragraph_id":"para_637"},{"text":"the particular-reference exception applies was their allegation","paragraph_id":"para_638"},{"text":"that some of the plaintiffs' customers had understood the red","paragraph_id":"para_639"},{"text":"rating to refer to the plaintiffs. But they also argued that if","paragraph_id":"para_640"},{"text":"a customer could have concluded that the statement referred to a","paragraph_id":"para_641"},{"text":"member of the group, that member would have a claim. And the only","paragraph_id":"para_642"},{"text":"basis put forward by the plaintiffs for a customer to reach that","paragraph_id":"para_643"},{"text":"conclusion is that the plaintiff is members of the industry.","paragraph_id":"para_644"},{"text":"14 The district court cited these same rationales in","paragraph_id":"para_645"},{"text":"determining that the \"letter and spirit of the group defamation","paragraph_id":"para_646"},{"text":"rule\" were \"inapposite.\" Bean Me. Lobster, Inc., 2025 WL 416436,","paragraph_id":"para_647"},{"text":"at *47-48 (noting that \"the industry-wide nature of the Statements","paragraph_id":"para_648"},{"text":"necessarily implicated each and every member of the Plaintiff","paragraph_id":"para_649"},{"text":"group\" and that the Statements \"purported to be based upon","paragraph_id":"para_650"},{"text":"scientific data\" rather than constituting \"the type of hyperbolic","paragraph_id":"para_651"},{"text":"statements that undergird the group defamation rule\").","paragraph_id":"para_652"},{"text":"- 26 -","paragraph_id":"para_653"},{"text":"that \"[a]ll lawyers are shysters\"). But not all such cases do.15","paragraph_id":"para_654"},{"text":"See, e.g., JB & Assocs., 932 N.W.2d at 75-77, 79-80 (statements","paragraph_id":"para_655"},{"text":"about the statistical dangers of tanning beds); Noral v. Hearst","paragraph_id":"para_656"},{"text":"Publ'ns, Inc., 104 P.2d 860, 861-62 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1940)","paragraph_id":"para_657"},{"text":"(statement that union officials were diverting dues to fund","paragraph_id":"para_658"},{"text":"communist propaganda); Sumner v. Buel, 12 Johns. 475, 475 (N.Y.","paragraph_id":"para_659"},{"text":"Sup. Ct. 1815) (statement that officers of three militia companies","paragraph_id":"para_660"},{"text":"had taken certain steps to discourage those under their command","paragraph_id":"para_661"},{"text":"from mustering when called to service and lied about it to a","paragraph_id":"para_662"},{"text":"court-martial); Conformis, 58 F.4th at 528-30 (statements about","paragraph_id":"para_663"},{"text":"the effectiveness and safety of a medical device).","paragraph_id":"para_664"},{"text":"Nor are we convinced that the Statements in fact","paragraph_id":"para_665"},{"text":"necessarily apply to each plaintiff. Certainly, some of the","paragraph_id":"para_666"},{"text":"plaintiffs are associations of lobstermen or are lobstermen","paragraph_id":"para_667"},{"text":"themselves; in other words, the individuals and entities directly","paragraph_id":"para_668"},{"text":"using the fishing gear targeted by the Statements. But as the","paragraph_id":"para_669"},{"text":"Aquarium notes, others -- including lead plaintiff Bean Maine","paragraph_id":"para_670"},{"text":"15 Further, as the Aquarium points out, the group-defamation","paragraph_id":"para_671"},{"text":"rule arguably would be superfluous if it applied only to hyperbole:","paragraph_id":"para_672"},{"text":"Hyperbolic statements are already non-actionable. See, e.g.,","paragraph_id":"para_673"},{"text":"Haworth v. Feigon, 623 A.2d 150, 156 n.3 (Me. 1993) (statements","paragraph_id":"para_674"},{"text":"that are \"clear hyperbole . . . are as a matter of law not","paragraph_id":"para_675"},{"text":"actionable\" (citing Milkovich v. Lorain J. Co., 497 U.S. 1, 20","paragraph_id":"para_676"},{"text":"(1990)); see also Nat Stern, The Certainty Principle as","paragraph_id":"para_677"},{"text":"Justification for the Group Defamation Rule, 40 Ariz. St. L.J.","paragraph_id":"para_678"},{"text":"951, 991-92 (2008) (reasoning that dismissal under the group","paragraph_id":"para_679"},{"text":"defamation rule \"may operate as a substitute for the fatal absence","paragraph_id":"para_680"},{"text":"of a provably false factual assertion\" in cases involving","paragraph_id":"para_681"},{"text":"hyperbole).","paragraph_id":"para_682"},{"text":"- 27 -","paragraph_id":"para_683"},{"text":"Lobster -- allege they are only involved in downstream activities","paragraph_id":"para_684"},{"text":"such as \"market[ing] and sell[ing]\" of lobster.","paragraph_id":"para_685"},{"text":"Regardless, the plaintiffs have not cited, and we have","paragraph_id":"para_686"},{"text":"been unable to find, any case applying the particular-reference","paragraph_id":"para_687"},{"text":"exception that allowed a claim against a large group to proceed on","paragraph_id":"para_688"},{"text":"the theory that the challenged statements arguably applied to each","paragraph_id":"para_689"},{"text":"member of the large group. Instead, that theory of liability is","paragraph_id":"para_690"},{"text":"permitted by the Second Restatement as to small groups. See","paragraph_id":"para_691"},{"text":"Arcand, 567 F.2d at 1164 (rule permits suit \"if a defamatory","paragraph_id":"para_692"},{"text":"statement applies to all members of a small group\"). But it is","paragraph_id":"para_693"},{"text":"not permitted as to large groups, which must rely on the","paragraph_id":"para_694"},{"text":"particular-reference exception. Restatement (Second) of Torts","paragraph_id":"para_695"},{"text":"§ 564A; see, e.g., JB & Assocs., 932 N.W.2d at 78-80 (statements","paragraph_id":"para_696"},{"text":"about the safety of tanning beds that arguably applied to each and","paragraph_id":"para_697"},{"text":"every tanning salon using those beds was insufficient absent a","paragraph_id":"para_698"},{"text":"particular reference to plaintiffs' salons); Ky. Fried Chicken of","paragraph_id":"para_699"},{"text":"Bowling Green, Inc. v. Sanders, 563 S.W.2d 8, 8-9 (Ky. 1978) (per","paragraph_id":"para_700"},{"text":"curiam) (statements about the quality and nutritional value of KFC","paragraph_id":"para_701"},{"text":"menu items that arguably applied to each and every franchisee","paragraph_id":"para_702"},{"text":"serving those foods was insufficient absent a particular reference","paragraph_id":"para_703"},{"text":"to plaintiff's restaurant). In essence, then, the plaintiffs ask","paragraph_id":"para_704"},{"text":"us to expand the rationale of the small-group exception to cover","paragraph_id":"para_705"},{"text":"groups of any size, so long as the statement encompasses all","paragraph_id":"para_706"},{"text":"members of the group.","paragraph_id":"para_707"},{"text":"- 28 -","paragraph_id":"para_708"},{"text":"We are not persuaded by the plaintiffs' arguments. The","paragraph_id":"para_709"},{"text":"plaintiffs rely on Fawcett Publications, Inc. v. Morris, 377 P.2d","paragraph_id":"para_710"},{"text":"42 (Okla. 1962) -- a case that predates the Second","paragraph_id":"para_711"},{"text":"Restatement -- and New York and Utah cases that follow its","paragraph_id":"para_712"},{"text":"approach.16 See, e.g., Brady v. Ottaway Newspapers, Inc., 84 A.D.2d","paragraph_id":"para_713"},{"text":"226 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981); Elias v. Rolling Stone LLC, 872 F.3d 97","paragraph_id":"para_714"},{"text":"(2d Cir. 2017); Pratt v. Nelson, 164 P.3d 366 (Utah 2007). In","paragraph_id":"para_715"},{"text":"Fawcett, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma adopted a multi-factor test","paragraph_id":"para_716"},{"text":"for group defamation claims, weighing factors such as the group's","paragraph_id":"para_717"},{"text":"size, \"the intensity of the suspicion cast upon the plaintiff,\"","paragraph_id":"para_718"},{"text":"and the prominence of the plaintiff within the group. See 377","paragraph_id":"para_719"},{"text":"P.2d at 51-52 (quoting Note, Liability for Defamation of a Group,","paragraph_id":"para_720"},{"text":"34 Colum. L. Rev. 1322, 1324-25 (1934)). But that is not the","paragraph_id":"para_721"},{"text":"Second Restatement test, and so we decline to hold that the Law","paragraph_id":"para_722"},{"text":"Court would join the small minority of states that follow the","paragraph_id":"para_723"},{"text":"multi-factor approach. See, e.g., Dobbs et al., supra, § 531","paragraph_id":"para_724"},{"text":"(distinguishing the Fawcett test from the Second Restatement","paragraph_id":"para_725"},{"text":"test); Nat Stern, The Certainty Principle as Justification for the","paragraph_id":"para_726"},{"text":"Group Defamation Rule, 40 Ariz. St. L.J. 951, 966-67 (2008)","paragraph_id":"para_727"},{"text":"16 The plaintiffs also quote the statement in Alexis v.","paragraph_id":"para_728"},{"text":"District of Columbia that there is no \"'bright line' above which","paragraph_id":"para_729"},{"text":"a defamed group is 'too big.'\" 77 F. Supp. 2d 35, 41 (D.D.C.","paragraph_id":"para_730"},{"text":"1999). But they neglect to quote the following line of the","paragraph_id":"para_731"},{"text":"opinion, which states that members of a group \"generally are not","paragraph_id":"para_732"},{"text":"permitted to sue for group defamation if the group has more than","paragraph_id":"para_733"},{"text":"25 members [and] will almost invariably not be permitted to sue if","paragraph_id":"para_734"},{"text":"the group has more than 100 members.\" Id.","paragraph_id":"para_735"},{"text":"- 29 -","paragraph_id":"para_736"},{"text":"(\"Oklahoma and New York have remained lonely enclaves of official","paragraph_id":"para_737"},{"text":"embrace of the [Fawcett] test.\"); see also Pratt, 164 P.3d at 383","paragraph_id":"para_738"},{"text":"n.114 (adopting Fawcett in Utah).","paragraph_id":"para_739"},{"text":"Conformis and JB & Associates help to illustrate why the","paragraph_id":"para_740"},{"text":"plaintiffs' claims must fail under the Second Restatement test.","paragraph_id":"para_741"},{"text":"Although the Aquarium does not dispute that it \"intended the","paragraph_id":"para_742"},{"text":"statement[s] to refer to the\" plaintiffs insofar as they fish in","paragraph_id":"para_743"},{"text":"the American lobster fishery, and the complaint alleges facts","paragraph_id":"para_744"},{"text":"suggesting that third parties understood the Statements to refer","paragraph_id":"para_745"},{"text":"to the plaintiffs, here -- as in Conformis -- \"more is needed.\"","paragraph_id":"para_746"},{"text":"58 F.4th at 529. And unlike in Conformis, there is no reference","paragraph_id":"para_747"},{"text":"to the plaintiffs in particular -- nothing like the specific,","paragraph_id":"para_748"},{"text":"exclusive identification of the manufacturer's TKR device that we","paragraph_id":"para_749"},{"text":"concluded provided the \"more\" in that case. Id. at 529-30.","paragraph_id":"para_750"},{"text":"The facts in JB & Associates, on the other hand, are","paragraph_id":"para_751"},{"text":"practically indistinguishable from those underlying the","paragraph_id":"para_752"},{"text":"plaintiffs' claims. There, the defamatory statements regarding","paragraph_id":"para_753"},{"text":"the safety of tanning beds surely implicated each plaintiff as an","paragraph_id":"para_754"},{"text":"operator of a tanning salon just as much as statements about the","paragraph_id":"para_755"},{"text":"dangers of particular fishing gear arguably implicate every","paragraph_id":"para_756"},{"text":"lobsterman using that gear. See 932 N.W.2d at 75-77, 79-80. And","paragraph_id":"para_757"},{"text":"there, as here, customers specifically referenced the statements","paragraph_id":"para_758"},{"text":"in communications with the plaintiffs. Id. at 77, 79. But because","paragraph_id":"para_759"},{"text":"there was nothing \"more\" to suggest that the statements were","paragraph_id":"para_760"},{"text":"- 30 -","paragraph_id":"para_761"},{"text":"particular to the tanning salon operators in JB &","paragraph_id":"para_762"},{"text":"Associates -- beyond their mere membership in the group allegedly","paragraph_id":"para_763"},{"text":"defamed -- the court concluded that the exception did not apply.","paragraph_id":"para_764"},{"text":"See 932 N.W.2d at 79-80. The same is true in this case.","paragraph_id":"para_765"},{"text":"Finally, we are not convinced that the Law Court would","paragraph_id":"para_766"},{"text":"endorse the other rationales for applying the particular-reference","paragraph_id":"para_767"},{"text":"exception cited by the district court. See Bean Me. Lobster, Inc.,","paragraph_id":"para_768"},{"text":"2025 WL 416436, at *47-49. The court emphasized that \"the","paragraph_id":"para_769"},{"text":"Statements were not merely informational but included a call to","paragraph_id":"para_770"},{"text":"action.\" Id. at *48. But we are not aware of any precedent","paragraph_id":"para_771"},{"text":"suggesting that the advocacy-based nature of a statement may take","paragraph_id":"para_772"},{"text":"it beyond the group defamation rule. And we hesitate to conclude","paragraph_id":"para_773"},{"text":"that the Law Court would impose such a limitation when, as amici","paragraph_id":"para_774"},{"text":"highlight, calls to action -- including calls to boycott products","paragraph_id":"para_775"},{"text":"and industries -- are protected under the First Amendment. See","paragraph_id":"para_776"},{"text":"Claiborne Hardware, 458 U.S. at 909 (calls to join boycott \"involve","paragraph_id":"para_777"},{"text":"[protected] speech in its most direct form\"); Thomas v. Collins,","paragraph_id":"para_778"},{"text":"323 U.S. 516, 537 (1945) (First Amendment protects \"opportunity to","paragraph_id":"para_779"},{"text":"persuade to action\").","paragraph_id":"para_780"},{"text":"The district court also concluded that the lost business","paragraph_id":"para_781"},{"text":"suffered by the plaintiffs, and in particular the allegation that","paragraph_id":"para_782"},{"text":"customers had specifically cited the Seafood Watch rating,","paragraph_id":"para_783"},{"text":"sufficed to establish that the statements had \"special","paragraph_id":"para_784"},{"text":"application\" to the plaintiffs. Bean Me. Lobster, Inc., 2025","paragraph_id":"para_785"},{"text":"- 31 -","paragraph_id":"para_786"},{"text":"WL 416436, at *48-49 (quoting Sullivan v. Chester Water Auth.,","paragraph_id":"para_787"},{"text":"No. 22-cv-147, 2022 WL 2901068 at *13 (D. Me. July 22, 2022)). We","paragraph_id":"para_788"},{"text":"recognize, as the district court did, the significance of the","paragraph_id":"para_789"},{"text":"lobster industry to Maine's economy and culture. And we accept","paragraph_id":"para_790"},{"text":"(as we must on review of a motion to dismiss) that Seafood Watch's","paragraph_id":"para_791"},{"text":"red rating has caused substantial economic harm to the plaintiffs.","paragraph_id":"para_792"},{"text":"Id. at *34, *48; see Maldonado v. Fontanes, 568 F.3d 263, 266 (1st","paragraph_id":"para_793"},{"text":"Cir. 2009).","paragraph_id":"para_794"},{"text":"But the new insurance policy in Conformis had \"profound","paragraph_id":"para_795"},{"text":"financial consequences\" for the TKR manufacturer as well;","paragraph_id":"para_796"},{"text":"\"[s]till,\" we said, \"more is needed\" to meet the particular-","paragraph_id":"para_797"},{"text":"reference exception. 58 F.4th at 526-27, 529 (noting that some","paragraph_id":"para_798"},{"text":"doctors stopped ordering the plaintiff's TKR device even for","paragraph_id":"para_799"},{"text":"patients on other insurance plans). And the fact that customers","paragraph_id":"para_800"},{"text":"cited the Seafood Watch rating as a reason for ceasing business","paragraph_id":"para_801"},{"text":"does not supply the required evidence that the customers \"believed","paragraph_id":"para_802"},{"text":"the statements were about [the plaintiffs] specifically\" and not","paragraph_id":"para_803"},{"text":"\"aimed at [the American lobster fishery] in general.\" See JB &","paragraph_id":"para_804"},{"text":"Assocs., 932 N.W.2d at 79. We therefore do not view this evidence","paragraph_id":"para_805"},{"text":"as sufficient to demonstrate that the Statements made particular","paragraph_id":"para_806"},{"text":"reference to the plaintiffs.","paragraph_id":"para_807"},{"text":"Ultimately, we conclude that the Law Court would not","paragraph_id":"para_808"},{"text":"construe the Second Restatement's particular-reference exception","paragraph_id":"para_809"},{"text":"to permit the plaintiffs' claims here, because doing so would go","paragraph_id":"para_810"},{"text":"- 32 -","paragraph_id":"para_811"},{"text":"against the great weight of authority. The courts that have","paragraph_id":"para_812"},{"text":"accepted versions of the arguments offered by the plaintiffs apply","paragraph_id":"para_813"},{"text":"a different test from the one set out in the Second Restatement","paragraph_id":"para_814"},{"text":"and represent a minority view. Thus, we hold that the plaintiffs","paragraph_id":"para_815"},{"text":"have failed to state a claim for defamation under Maine law.","paragraph_id":"para_816"},{"text":"IV. CONCLUSION","paragraph_id":"para_817"},{"text":"For all these reasons, we reverse the district court's","paragraph_id":"para_818"},{"text":"denial of the Aquarium's motion to dismiss and remand with","paragraph_id":"para_819"},{"text":"instructions to dismiss the complaint.","paragraph_id":"para_820"}],"word_count":7308,"cites":["461 U.S. 138","458 U.S. 886","497 U.S. 1","323 U.S. 516","568 F.3d 263","479 F.3d 46","874 F.3d 54","158 F.4th 90","88 F.4th\n40","90 F.4th 593","74 F.3d\n1347","103 F.3d 186","567 F.2d 1163","92 F.2d 502","58 F.4th\n517","416\nF.3d 915","119 F.4th 67","233\nF.3d 24","238 F.3d 168","201 F.3d 680","602 F.2d 850","872 F.3d 97"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"6af1e1f08a25e14b7667e495c246955ce5e0889cc776032dddf42661ca9a3742","source_url":"https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/25-1206P-01A.pdf","fetched_at":"2026-10-12T19:04:28.139+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ca1-25-1772-2026-10-09","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca1-25-1772-2026-10-09","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca1-25-1772-2026-10-09","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca1-25-1772-2026-10-09","neighbors":[{"id":"us:ca1-25-2027-2026-10-16","name":"Morillo v. United States","decided":"2026-10-16","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca1-25-2027-2026-10-16","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca1-25-2027-2026-10-16","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca1-25-2027-2026-10-16"},{"id":"us:ca1-24-1447-2026-10-15","name":"Alvarado-Hernandez v. Blanche","decided":"2026-10-15","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca1-24-1447-2026-10-15","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca1-24-1447-2026-10-15","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca1-24-1447-2026-10-15"},{"id":"us:ca1-26-1187-2026-10-15","name":"United States v. Vizcaino Vizcaino","decided":"2026-10-15","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca1-26-1187-2026-10-15","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca1-26-1187-2026-10-15","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca1-26-1187-2026-10-15"},{"id":"us:ca1-25-2238-2026-10-13","name":"Alawieh v. Mullin","decided":"2026-10-13","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca1-25-2238-2026-10-13","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca1-25-2238-2026-10-13","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca1-25-2238-2026-10-13"},{"id":"us:ca1-25-1268-2026-10-09","name":"Warner v. Amgen Inc.","decided":"2026-10-09","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca1-25-1268-2026-10-09","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca1-25-1268-2026-10-09","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca1-25-1268-2026-10-09"},{"id":"us:ca1-24-2020-2026-10-08","name":"United States v. Monteiro","decided":"2026-10-08","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca1-24-2020-2026-10-08","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca1-24-2020-2026-10-08","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca1-24-2020-2026-10-08"},{"id":"us:ca1-23-1923-2026-10-02","name":"Pena-Torres v. University of Science, Arts and Tech","decided":"2026-10-02","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca1-23-1923-2026-10-02","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca1-23-1923-2026-10-02","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca1-23-1923-2026-10-02"},{"id":"us:ca1-25-1178-2026-09-30","name":"United States v. Pastrana-Roman","decided":"2026-09-30","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca1-25-1178-2026-09-30","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca1-25-1178-2026-09-30","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca1-25-1178-2026-09-30"},{"id":"us:ca1-25-1598-2026-09-29","name":"President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Harvard Graduate Students Union - UAW, Local 5118","decided":"2026-09-29","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca1-25-1598-2026-09-29","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca1-25-1598-2026-09-29","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca1-25-1598-2026-09-29"},{"id":"us:ca1-24-1098-2026-09-25","name":"Parente v. Lefebvre","decided":"2026-09-25","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca1-24-1098-2026-09-25","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca1-24-1098-2026-09-25","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca1-24-1098-2026-09-25"}],"verification":{"stored_sha256":"6af1e1f08a25e14b7667e495c246955ce5e0889cc776032dddf42661ca9a3742","recomputed_sha256":"6af1e1f08a25e14b7667e495c246955ce5e0889cc776032dddf42661ca9a3742","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-20T20:21:55.079Z"}},"hash":"sha256:abde1be053f75590d5e9a77a89489bc4dc3e930a42534cc4516b579b119e8445","version":"legal-2026-10-20","expires":"2026-10-21T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-20+legal-2026-10-20+2026-10-20T20:02:29","content_hash":"sha256:abde1be053f75590d5e9a77a89489bc4dc3e930a42534cc4516b579b119e8445","revalidate_after":"2026-10-20T21:21:55.565Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca1-25-1772-2026-10-09","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca1-25-1772-2026-10-09"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca1-25-1772-2026-10-09"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca1-25-1772-2026-10-09"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/ca1-25-1772-2026-10-09","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-11c9ef523ead0ca13da32e6d7276851a","response_hash":"sha256:abde1be053f75590d5e9a77a89489bc4dc3e930a42534cc4516b579b119e8445"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-03T15:24:56.548Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Aca1-25-1772-2026-10-09&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":38730}}