SPEAKER 1: Should
we get started?
JAY SHOOSTER: Good
with me, yeah.
SPEAKER 1: OK.
Thanks everyone for coming
to this Coffee Chat.
So this event is sponsored by
Animal Law Society, Food Law
Society and Effective Altruism.
Also the Dean of
Students Grant Fund.
And it is being filmed courtesy
of the Animal Law and Policy
Program.
So everyone just
be aware of that.
We do have pastries
and coffee here.
I'm sorry, PT has kind
of messed up our order.
I definitely did
ask for vegan stuff.
So the cookies are vegan,
but the bars are not.
So I do apologize for that.
There's coffee here.
There was also
supposed to be soy milk
so there's coffee without milk,
is the takeaway from that.
We have with us Jay
Shooster, and I'll
let him take it from here.
JAY SHOOSTER: All right.
Well, thank you all.
And, yeah, I guess first thing
I want to say is the usual.
I really am so happy to be
here and meet all of you.
And I'm only going to talk for
not too long before hopefully
we just have a conversation
[INAUDIBLE] in a small group.
And we can talk about-- and
I could answer any questions
that you have about anything
that sounds interesting.
Let's say, in the
next 5 to 10 minutes.
There are some things
that-- so, the talk
is going to be recorded,
that's definitely happening?
SPEAKER 1: Yes.
JAY SHOOSTER: OK.
So we'll have to have
a round two after it's
over to talk about maybe
some of the details of some
of the cases that I could
talk about in general terms,
but probably won't
want to get super
into the weeds for
different reasons.
But my background is just--
very briefly-- I always had
certain utilitarian leanings.
I read The Life You Can Save
by Peter Singer in high school,
because my dad was also
very much into philosophy
and so he shared
that book with me.
And so in high school and
early college I was into--
international development
was my main focus area.
But I definitely
internalized a lot
of the underlying principles
behind Peter Singer's work.
Is everyone generally familiar
with Peter Singer's work?
Yeah.
So I internalized some of
the general principles, which
is just the whole
idea, why would you
care about people
in other countries
the same amount we care about
people in our own country,
just because these are
arbitrary distinctions that
don't actually have
any moral significance.
And I think that
stuck with me somehow.
That didn't make me an animal
rights activist right away,
but it did plant
the seed that when
I started learning
about animal agriculture
and how horrific it was, I
started to ask those questions.
And what does the way
that someone's body--
how does the way that
someone's body looks,
whether you have feathers
or fur or scales,
what does that have to do
with their moral significance.
And so it didn't take long,
it didn't take a whole lot
to convert me.
I'd actually started out--
I never would've thought
I would do animal stuff.
I thought that
animal stuff wasn't
really important in comparison
to the real, serious issues
like human rights,
or so I thought.
But yes, I was persuaded
enough by, at least,
what I thought was the
torture-level suffering
that I'd seen in
these various Mercy
For Animals videos
and PETA daily videos,
so I decided to invest some
time in learning about it.
And at first-- and this will
all become relevant, I promise--
at first I didn't just become
a vegan hardcore animal rights
activist right away.
I just decided
that I didn't want
to eat products that came
from inhumane operations.
And so I made it a
mission to do my research,
and to only eat meat and
only eat animal products
from the places that I
really researched and found
were humane.
And I was going to
school in Gainesville
in Florida, in the middle
of farm country, where
we had amazing farmers'
markets, all the local farmers.
And I would go, I actually
went and asked them
about their
production practices,
and I made a little list
based on the practices
I saw in the PETA videos.
And I just remember very
vividly, asking this guy,
do you cut off their
horns without painkillers?
And he sighs, you know,
this is premium cow dairy,
and you can only get it
at the farmers' market.
And he sighed and
said, yeah, we do.
I don't feel good about it,
but if we were going to--
if we were going to
actually give them
painkillers when we were
going to do these mutilations,
it would increase the
cost of a cup of yogurt
by like a quarter, so
we don't do it anymore,
or we would go out of business.
And I had the same
experience multiple times.
It was either I would
get an answer like that
or I wouldn't get
an answer at all,
which was even more concerning.
And so next thing I knew,
I was just implicitly vegan
because I didn't
find anything that
actually met my ethical
standards for how
animals should be treated.
And that's all very
relevant to what I do today.
I mean I--
I'll just say fast forward--
I went to law school, I
worked in national security,
mostly different internships
during law school,
but remained interested
in animal rights.
I spent a year at
NYU at our Center
for Human Rights and Global
Justice doing national security
journalism work.
And then I ended up here
at the Richman Law Group,
where I work now.
And now I basically--
my full time
job is to do the very
sorts of investigations
and legal work of these
different factory farms
or industrial producers
of animal products,
to basically find
these companies,
to put these companies'
representations that you may
see that their products are
natural or humane or cage-free
or this or that, and
actually put it to the test
and do research to show
that that's not the case.
And then we sue them under
consumer protection statutes.
And so my law firm is unique.
It's-- well, I say my law firm,
the Richman Law Group where I
work--
about a third of our practice
is focused on animal protection,
consumer protection, or
animal rights-related consumer
protection work.
It's almost all
consumer protection,
and we do a little bit of
civil rights litigation,
suing the NYPD on the
side a little bit.
But for the most part it's
just consumer protection work,
about say-- probably
these days--
yeah, about a third
or 40% of our practice
is focused on industrial
animal agriculture,
and hopefully soon some other
forms of animal exploitation.
And then about
another probably 60%
is related to
glyphosate roundup.
You've probably seen a little
bit of this litigation going on
in the news.
Whereas a lot of the
really prominent cases
in the glyphosate
space right now
are focused on people
who get who [INAUDIBLE]
are spraying the
pesticide and get cancer.
We just are working on the
consumer protection side,
so where products are marketed
and advertised as natural,
but they have residues
of glyphosate in it,
we will file suit under state
consumer protection statutes.
I do very little of that.
I-- and this may be very
useful to folks here--
I was able to find funding for
a position that was focused only
on the animal ag
litigation, or about 90
plus percent focused on that.
And I could talk
to anyone who was
interested in trying to
chart their own path,
about how you might be able to
put yourself in that position
where you could do
something similar.
But yeah, I only do that
animal ag related litigation.
We mostly sue in the most
consumer protection-friendly
states, New York, California,
and Washington DC.
And we sue on behalf of
both individual consumers
who buy these products
and who are misled,
and then we also sue on behalf
of nonprofits like Animal Legal
Defense Fund, and we work with
a bunch of other animal rights
and environmental and
human health focus groups.
And one of the
hallmarks of our work,
and something I'm really excited
about, is that these companies,
I mean, basically it's
become all the rage,
where no matter how
big and evil you are,
you'll make every
claim under the sun
that you are sustainable
and natural and humane.
And we actually
have just started
a new wave of litigation
where we hit them
on all of these fronts.
And I'm really excited about
that, because it enables
us to bring together groups.
Like currently we have a
lawsuit against Pilgrim's Pride,
which is the second
largest chicken
producer in the country.
And we've brought together
groups like Food and Water
Watch, which is really
focused on the environment
and human health; the Organic
Consumers Association, which
is really focused on consumer
protection and human health,
and then animal
equality [INAUDIBLE]..
So we can bring these--
we call it our
trifecta of issues--
to really put the pressure
on these companies
on a range of
dimensions, and also
build a broad coalition
of organizations.
And we think this is effective
for several reasons, and one
that the more the merrier,
and the more pressure you
can out on the
companies the better.
But then also we think that,
sadly, the reality is that--
even though I think in the
general public people are
very supportive
of animal rights,
to get the attention of the
serious old white man who
is sitting as a
judge, unfortunately
disproportionately
old white men,
we need to try to find ways
to appeal to the sensibilities
of this crowd.
And so we try to make
sure that we are not just
focused narrowly on
one particular issue.
And I guess I don't want to
get too deep into the weeds
about how--
the actual mechanics of it.
But-- and we could talk
about standing issues,
I know that's a big
issue in this space--
but I guess I'll
just say generally--
I'll just check my
notes to make sure I've
covered everything I wanted to.
So I'll just talk
very briefly about how
we prove that these companies
don't actually live up
to their representations.
And for whoever is listening
to this video one day, how you
can-- it's basically a formula.
For my adversaries who want
to know how we operate,
maybe I'm giving
ourselves too much credit.
I go to their conferences
and always try
to listen to what
they're saying,
so maybe they're doing the same.
So basically we'll comb
through all of the company's
representations across all of
these different dimensions,
social media, television
advertising, radio, and website
is a big one.
And then we will engage in
a range of investigations,
everything from working with
undercover investigators
and other partner organizations,
frankly finding just publicly
available information from
other investigations that
have already happened.
And then there's a
bunch of publics--
so what's the word--
open source materials that
the government just puts out.
There's something called
that EPA ECHO database, where
you can just look up all sorts
of information about Clean
Water Act violations
at slaughter plants,
and you could find out what
the demographic information
of the community is, so that
you can then explain to people
how this is having
disproportionate effects
on communities of color.
And you can see that they're
dumping all this toxic waste.
And that's just there
for you, online.
And then we also work with--
we send out tons
of lawyer requests,
all the time, on everything
from animal welfare issues,
to pathogen testing
results to find out
about whether they have
multidrug-resistant pathogens
in the meat supply.
And yeah, there are
other work that we
do through these public
records requests at the state
and to the federal level.
And then, frankly, there's
just a lot of deep Googling,
is what we call it, that we do.
Where there's just
tricks that you
can use that a lot
of-- that we learned
from our peers in the
animal advocacy space
that they found to be really
useful, where you can just find
a ton of information deeply
buried within the internet
by using a few little Boolean
search terms, if you know what
you're doing.
And we've been able to find
really damning information
that way, that these
companies don't realize
is just sitting around, floating
on the internet somewhere,
and that could reveal
something that--
we found multiple
newsworthy items
about their really horrific
aspects of their production
practice, just through this
kind of online sleuthing.
And then the last main
component of our investigations
that we do, that I'm
really excited about, is
actual chemical residue
testing of the new products,
and then also of feed, if
we can get our hands on it,
and manure, to find
out what kind of drugs
are they giving these animals.
Or even if they're not giving
to them, what kind of drugs
are getting into the meat
that consumers are eating.
And then the last
thing that I'll
say before we just
open it up to folks,
is that why I think
this is extremely
effective as a strategy
for animal advocacy.
And I think it's really twofold,
what I'm so excited about.
So forgive me if this is all--
if this isn't news
to any of you.
But generally speaking,
it's really, really
hard for private
citizens-- so non,
if you're not a prosecutor--
it's really, really
hard for you to get the issue
of animal welfare into court,
and there just are
not legal tools
available for you to do it.
It can be done in
certain contexts.
Animal Welfare Act
litigation, for example,
related to animals in
laboratories or zoos.
But especially
when you're talking
about farm animals, which
are obviously much, much
more numerous than animals
used for medical research
or for entertainment,
there's really, really little
that anyone can do,
just because there
are no laws that provide
a private right of action
to get to private parties to
be able to enforce these laws.
There are some
exceptions to that,
that I think are really
interesting and under-explored,
which we can get into if
anyone's really curious.
But as a broad
characterization, I
think it's fair to say
there's basically no way
to get the issue of the
actual treatment of animals
into court.
And so, historically,
so much of what
we learn as animal
welfare litigation
is not actually
about animal welfare.
You can sue a farm
for polluting,
but the animal welfare issues
are just tangential at best.
I think a lot of the most
important litigation that
is happening for animals,
does fall into that category.
But it's still a
far cry from what
I would like to see actually
happening for animals,
just because I really do
think that for me, while all
of these issues are important,
I think that we really
need to find ways to get--
to put these companies on trial
in the court of public opinion
and in the court of law
for the actual treatment
of the animals themselves.
And have it not just be color
and context that animals
are abused, but actually talk
about what really matters
instead of finding all of
these oblique ways of trying
to get at the issue.
And so, yeah, if you're not a
prosecutor you're very limited.
But-- and there's a
really big but here--
there is this false advertising
litigation, which actually
even though
technically speaking,
the core of our
legal disagreement
is are you misleading consumers.
If the thing that you're
misleading consumers
about is, are the animals,
in fact, treated humanely,
you can really
get into the weeds
and have an entire
lawsuit that is
focused on this exact question.
Are these animals actually
being treated humanely?
And so that means that
we are able to one,
just force this issue into
court and actually get
a judge to sit down and
a jury, potentially,
to listen to these
arguments and learn about,
in intricate detail, how these
companies actually operate.
But then also to get discovery
on these companies, and to
find out--
we can subpoena companies for--
we often say that in the
past with the animal rights
movement, if you want to get
information on these companies
you can do an undercover
investigation of a farm,
but we can basically do an
undercover investigation
of the boardroom.
We can find out, we can
force them to turn over
their documents to find out not
just what did this random farm
worker do to hurt this
pig, we can find out
what is the systemic policy
practices of these companies.
How did they actually think, and
all the way up to the very top.
And what and are they--
and we can actually
show that these companies,
as a matter of policy,
are engaging in
abusive practices.
And through these
investigations we've been able--
we've learned things
I think have really--
no one had any
appreciation of before.
I never heard,
just as an example,
until we filed this lawsuit--
and this is extremely graphic,
but it's important--
the most common
method of euthanasia
that is used for chickens
on factory farms,
or not on factory farms,
period, most common method
of euthanasia, the
one that's standard,
that is approved by the American
Veterinary Medical Association,
which I won't delve
into, but have
had a lot of unpleasant
thoughts about them.
The standard method is to
actually, by hand, manually,
just pull their heads
apart from their bodies.
And you can just
imagine, this is not a--
there's so much room
for human error.
You have to do it exactly right,
because if you pull too hard,
their heads will literally
pop off of their bodies.
But if you pull too soft,
then they won't actually--
you won't actually
separate their--
it actually involves
breaking their arteries
that connect their head
to the rest of their body.
And if you can't
actually achieve
this cervical dislocation, then
they will just slowly, slowly
suffer to death,
for over-- it could
be an extremely
long period of time.
And so it's really
horrific, but no one had--
I'd never heard, I'd been
an activist for eight years,
and a very dedicated one, I'd
never heard of this before.
I never knew in particular
that it was just a common--
just as a matter
of course, animals
are decapitated, and en masse
on farms across the country.
And we were actually able
to, through deposition,
and I can't say which
case this was in,
but actually sit down
and force this company
to get into the
details, and have
them look at us in the
eyes and say, yeah,
sometimes they do end up in two
pieces when we try to do this.
And that's just the
tip of the iceberg
of the sort of information
that we've been able to get,
that you wouldn't
necessarily know.
Even if you're an
undercover investigator,
there's some things that
you're not going to see.
It's actually been really
hard to get investigators
into the actual farms
where animals are raised,
rather than slaughterhouses.
There's been more success there.
But there's just
so much to learn,
and so much we can learn
through this litigation.
And then we can
actually just sit down
for seven hours with the
head veterinarian for one
of the largest meat companies in
the world, and just grill them.
And really get unprecedented
access to information,
and get it on the record, too.
Not just these BS,
phony statements
that these companies
put out in response
to the next investigation
that comes out,
but be able to ask them--
to basically cross-examine
them and get admissions
on the record that
just detail, I
think in really
never-before seen
detail, their actual
practices, and then
their knowledge of
how horrific they are.
So I will stop there.
But suffice to say, I think
it's extremely important
and groundbreaking work.
Actually there's
just one final thing
I'll add just to
further that point,
is that something that we have
learned that the industry does
also, that I've never really
heard anyone talk before,
is that they now, as a
matter of course, record--
they take video recordings
of all the slaughterhouses.
And they actually have a remote
team that audits somewhere
that's not where the plants are
located, a third party that,
by video, is watching
a certain subset
of the footage every day.
And we are able to actually
ask them to turn over
that footage to us.
So instead of having--
we don't need to
send somebody in
to hide and take video footage.
We can literally demand that
they produce the footage
that they're already taking,
in much greater detail,
24/7 in all these plants.
So we really are able
to put this industry
under a microscope, literally
and figuratively, in a way
that I don't think--
I'm not sure anyone really
has been able to before,
and I'm extremely
excited about the work.
And I'd love to
answer any questions
and chat with you all
about it, or other things.
SPEAKER 1: What are some of
the-- so when you're bringing
false advertising
claims, how is--
so a common word that
a company might say,
like humanely raised,
or something like that--
how is that
justiciable, basically.
How do judges think about--
or juries, I guess.
I don't know if it's
a question [INAUDIBLE]
JAY SHOOSTER: Yeah, it's
a really good question.
And every time-- there's no
way of knowing in the abstract,
before it actually
gets litigated,
how the courts are going
to turn on these issues.
And so these
companies, they claim
that it's just puffery,
is this the legal term,
that no one actually believes--
this isn't actually a
concrete representation
that any reasonable consumer is
going to take any meaning from.
It's just a thing
that companies say,
and it's so vague that
you can't possibly
hold this company liable
for false advertising.
And if you asked me this a
few years ago, I would say,
I really don't know how
this is going to turn out.
But actually now we
have case law, which--
it's hardly a settled question.
There's just not that many cases
that it could have happened.
I mean there's like
maybe 15 cases that
fall-- that have even touched
on this issue, generally,
and then that actually
use the word humane,
where that's the key
issue in the litigation.
I mean, maybe there's
10 of them ever.
But there are really good
legal opinions out there
across the country that
have said humane is
an actionable representation.
But it varies from word to word.
So these companies start using
terms like, I don't know,
responsibly raised, or
something like that.
I don't know what they're going
to do with responsibly raised.
But we have some precedent
that we can make the argument,
but humane is one
that we feel pretty
good about, just because there
have been enough courts that
have said that humane is an
actionable misrepresentation,
and in multiple jurisdictions.
But it really varies
from word to word,
and who knows what
crazy BS word they're
going to come up with next.
But, you know.
SPEAKER 1: I wonder if
you worry at all about,
you say about, I don't know,
90 plus percent of your work
is just doing these false
advertising and otherwise
consumer protection claims
against different groups
within the food supply chain.
Do you worry about-- and
no pun intended-- putting
all your eggs in this basket?
You know, if say a very
bad precedent comes out.
I don't know, let's say
the Supreme Court tomorrow
says that humane is not an
actionable word, or something.
Are you worried about the times
sunk, or something like that?
JAY SHOOSTER: Personally, I'm
not too concerned by that.
I mean, I think that is
very much a possibility,
and there's about 50 ways
that this field of litigation
could go kaput tomorrow.
Probably not tomorrow, but soon.
It could take-- it could be
a appellate legal decision.
It could be back to Congress.
It could be [INAUDIBLE]
state government
passing all these laws
that are saying that meat
needs to mean this thing.
And so they could
actually have--
you can imagine a law that
says humane is just not
an actionable claim under our
consumer protection statutes.
I'm not personally worried about
putting my eggs in one basket,
personally, even though that is
the vast majority of what I do.
I think I could very easily move
on to a different sort of work,
and I think this is a really
promising line of work.
And as I was saying,
there's just so much.
I'm learning so much every day,
through this work, about how
the industry works,
that even if we never
were able to do one
of these cases again,
they're just invaluable,
the lessons that we're
learning through the process.
SPEAKER 2: So I mentioned that
not only you, but also probably
the judges, and maybe even
sometimes company officials
will learn quite a few things
they were maybe too aware of.
Maybe they had it in their
subconscious mindset somewhere,
but when they have
to engage with this
they probably become
much more aware of that.
Do you think, or did you
speak to judges afterwards,
to some degree?
And did they tell
you, to some degree,
that they have changed
their views on this,
or that the new information
influenced them, or maybe even
their company--
JAY SHOOSTER: The
judges, you said?
SPEAKER 2: Judges, or
even people from companies
who would then, after
seeing all this evidence
and engaging with it
for hours, maybe this
is when they start to
actively think about it,
rather than using their
intuition and say, oh yeah,
we're probably fine.
But then when you're confronted
with all those things,
do you think that
this might even
change some of their opinions?
JAY SHOOSTER: I do suspect the
judges are being percolated,
but I don't know, I think
we haven't asked them,
But perhaps we should,
or really someone should.
An academic should.
SPEAKER 2: Because
even if this turns out
to be not successful,
maybe there are
some successes along the line.
JAY SHOOSTER: Yeah,
I think also just
in the court of public
opinion, I mean,
you've got a lot of
really good news coverage.
In fact, later this
week we're going
to have a big news story
coming out as well,
you should keep your
eyes out for it.
And working with
really top journalists
on a variety of issues based
on things we've learned here,
and probably have a New York
Times, a big New York Times
piece coming out soon that
I'm really excited about.
So yeah, there's a bunch of
these other, just, social
change that's happening
around the litigation.
In terms of the actual
people at the companies,
it's really, really
interesting, the gulf
between the people who
work in the production
side of the businesses
and the people who
work in the marketing side.
Because people who work
on the production side,
they were born
into this and they
were doing this for
their whole lives,
and they know how it works.
So they just are so disconnected
from the rest of the world
that they think this
is totally fine.
And actually, if you go to
any of these meat industry
conferences, they all say,
we've got a great story to tell.
We just got to make
sure consumers know more
about the great
story that we really
have to tell about our practices
and how well the animals are
treated.
And of course, the
marketing department
is like, yeah, I don't think so.
And so, that really happened.
And actually what we've
seen through depositions
with some of these people who
work in marketing, it's like--
I mean, I know one
of my colleagues--
I wasn't there in person
for this deposition.
I was just listening
over the phone--
but he said he thought that
the person in the marketing
department was going
to cry learning about,
through the deposition, seeing
one document after another.
Do you think this is humane?
Do you think this is humane?
And one thing I didn't
mention before that I think
is important to
this work generally,
is it's very easy to dismiss
a PETA investigation as a PETA
investigation, or even an MFA,
Mercy For Animals, or HSUS,
oh, that's animal
rights activists.
Here we could literally give
the news, be like, this picture,
this is literally the manual
from the company about how
to do this horrible thing.
And I think there's an extra
level of power that can put
some of these issues to rest.
But yeah, I think sadly even
in the case of the people who
work on the marketing side
in these companies, I mean,
it's like when people say
it's hard to convince somebody
of something if their
paycheck depends on them not
really understanding the issue.
So I know I butchered-- no pun
intended-- that expression.
But, yeah, you get the point.
So I don't know exactly who
it's making an impact on,
but I think that it's
making an impact more
in the general court
of public opinion.
SPEAKER 3: I'm just curious
whether the particular--
so from what I understand
like with chicken and eggs,
there's a different
industry structure,
and there is more contract work.
It's often the people
producing on the ground level,
so to speak, are not part of
the same corporate umbrella
as the company that is
producing the goods that people
buy at the supermarket.
So I don't know if that--
have you interacted
with those industries,
and if so has it presented
different challenges
or variables than
when litigating
against other adversaries that
produce other animal products.
JAY SHOOSTER: So if anything,
I've been in most of the cases
that I've done involve
a poultry component,
so that's what I know best.
I can't really
think about how that
has played a big role
in a litigation so far.
Like the difference between
working on pig slaughter
versus chicken slaughter.
I can't really think of
how that is different,
but it's definitely an
extremely important issue,
and it matters for work that
happens around our work.
Like when talk about--
so one of the things
that we've done
is actually meet with some
of these contract growers
and poultry growers, and there's
a lot of disgruntled contract
poultry growers, as
you can [INAUDIBLE]
And we haven't been able to
find that at the same level,
to work with those
sorts of people
and get intel from those sorts
of people on the pork side.
So maybe that's one difference.
Particularly it is more
concentrated in the pork
industry.
Or they don't-- the
people who are raising--
the farms aren't as often, I
think, owned by contractors.
But I think even there, you
have some contractors as well.
But I don't know that industry
quite as well as the poultry
industry.
And I can say working
in dairy, which is--
we have a case against
Ben & Jerry's right now--
and it really is such
a different industry.
And I'm still-- we haven't
even started discovery really,
in that-- or, that's
not true-- we're still
right in the beginning
of the discovery,
so there's a lot to learn.
And it is extremely different.
And there's definitely
a learning curve,
just in terms of, who do we
need to ask for the documents,
and what is--
do they use this same
sort of-- what kind of--
how do they euthanize
animals in their industry.
There's just so much to learn
about all these industries.
I mean, you think
you've been an activist,
and you go to a top
school, and you're
a smart, informed person, and
you really probably only know
a tiny, tiny little bit about
how the industry actually
operates.
So it's a big learning curve.
SPEAKER 3: Just ask a
very quick follow up.
So when you say that
it's relatively easier
to get information from
contract growers in the poultry
industry, is the
prediscovery or are you
talking about during discovery?
JAY SHOOSTER: All of the above.
SPEAKER 3: All of
the above, yeah.
JAY SHOOSTER: I mean,
we just generally,
aside from our cases,
we always have--
we're just engaging in
investigations, period.
So yeah, I mean,
during discovery
we wouldn't be able to reach
out to a big company's contract
growers while the lawsuit
is ongoing out there.
So yeah, that just tends
to be as a general matter.
But honestly it could
just be a coincidence
that we haven't found the
pork producers so far.
They may be out there, some
disgruntled pork producers
we just have not met yet.
But certainly they've been
less prominent, it seems.
SPEAKER 4: Yeah, you
mentioned briefly
that you could tell us more
about the process of suing
as a private citizen,
if we were interested.
Could you say more about that?
And also, I'm coming at
this from the perspective
of an undergrad rather than
a law student, and so just
if you could give--
this might not be as
useful to everyone else--
but if you could give a
brief explanation of what
it looks like to come
forward with a suit
as a private citizen, that
would be super helpful.
JAY SHOOSTER: Yeah,
so we're always
looking for people who have
actually bought these products.
But one thing, just as
a preliminary matter
to be clear to everyone,
is in the meat context
this is very tricky,
because preemption, which
is this legal doctrine that
just means that there are
federal laws that
govern labeling, well,
in this context there are
federal laws that govern
labeling of meat products.
And they expressly
say in the law
that no, there can't
be any other standards
for the labeling
of meat products.
So that means that we
can't really go after--
it's very hard to have
a consumer class action
case where--
going on behalf of
consumers who are deceived,
because we can't go after
the label, in the meat cases.
In dairy and in
eggs you can, just
because it's weird courts of the
law, so it's a bit different.
But in meat cases you can't
go after the label itself,
and for a class
action, I mean, it's
just going to be
very hard to find
a-- to identify a broad group
of people that have only
seen the website
representations, for example,
and relied on the
website and not the label
when they're buying
the products.
So as an individual
consumer, if you
wanted to be a
plaintiff in a case,
it would be not
impossible, but it'd
be much easier in an
egg or a dairy case,
because we can actually
go after the label itself.
And everybody who buys the
product sees the label.
And so if you actually
want to bring a case--
I mean, the way that
it typically happens
is there is some investigation.
Let's say PETA does an
investigation of an egg
company--
and I actually
having an egg case
right now against
Nellie's Free Range
Eggs, which is interesting.
They just filed it.
Encourage people
to check it out--
PETA does an investigation
against Nellie's, they
put something on
social media saying
look how terribly
they're treated,
and then you comment on
their Facebook, oh my gosh,
I've been buying
Nellie's for months
because I thought that they
were actually treated humanely.
And then PETA's
going to say, OK,
she's definitely
going on our list,
or they're definitely
going on our list.
And then they might follow
up with you and say, hey,
we're actually interested
in bringing a class action.
And so if you as an individual--
it's going to be hard to
just initiate something
as an individual.
It's not impossible, but
if you went to a law firm
and were like, hey, I bought
these products but I actually
don't think they're humane,
but I bought them because I
thought they were humane.
Now you need to show that you
relied on the representations
and the casing.
They're going to say, OK,
well, what's your proof.
And yeah, if you actually
had-- if you could assemble
at least a semblance
of a case, it's
possible you could get a firm,
or certainly a nonprofit group,
to say, hey, we actually think
that this is worth pursuing.
And actually this is
one thing that I really
do think people should
think seriously about.
As I was saying before, you
could find out so much just
through publicly
available information.
And so, I almost think I could--
if you just gave
me a company that
makes these kind of claims,
if you gave me a week,
I could come back with
at least, probably,
a decent case of
false advertising.
Just because they're all lying.
And that's the other thing.
It's not just the
information that's out there.
It's just, they're
all so egregiously
lying about all this stuff.
And so, yeah, you could
actually try to create a case.
And the more information
you can find,
you can actually pitch me.
You can say, hey, I think
these people are lying,
and actually I
bought this product
because I thought it was humane.
Although, that would be
a tough sell to a court
one day, to sue.
If you were literally
looking for it to sue,
just because, again
you have to show
you actually bought this product
because you believed that they
were as they past advertised.
Anyway, I don't know if
that answers your question,
but we can talk more
in detail about it.
SPEAKER 4: Thanks.
SPEAKER 2: One question,
which is like very far
away from anywhere where
we need your expertise,
so if you can maybe
[INAUDIBLE] on this, instead.
So when you say
that you're fighting
about how to use the
word humanely, and then
they might come up
with different words,
and so on and so forth, when
you might fight them again.
And [INAUDIBLE] there
were some ledges,
some judgments, some
member states of the EU
were using the word
milk for almond milk.
And then there were complaints
because apparently milk
has to do somehow
with an animal,
so they couldn't
use the word milk
to describe almond milk,
or soy milk, or whatnot.
And I was wondering--
like more a meta question--
on this whole better
for the correct words.
Since language in
itself is developing
over thousands of
thousands of years,
so they have a built-in
conservative element,
is whether this is
all things considered,
maybe not on an individual
basis, individual case basis,
but all things
considered that this
is better for the correct
words, whether that
is from a progressive animal
rights perspective, a losing
battle.
JAY SHOOSTER: I'm
sorry, I'm not in so--
SPEAKER 2: Since
you try to argue
for using the correct words,
like in some of those cases--
JAY SHOOSTER: Are you saying
could this actually backfire?
Is that the question?
SPEAKER 4: Yeah, all
things considered.
Maybe not on an individual
case, but all things considered,
the different cases and claims
for using specific words.
Like in your case,
I mean, I fully
agree with that, right, they
shouldn't call it humanely.
But then you have other cases
where they bring claims,
companies bring claims against
other companies, saying,
no you can't call this
milk because a cow
didn't suffer beforehand.
And I was wondering, since there
is such a conservative element
built into language, that
all things considered--
JAY SHOOSTER: OK, yeah, that
is a really good question.
And I'm not super
concerned about it,
because I actually just think
that the standard question
in the law that is
asked, the legal standard
is does a reasonable consumer
think that x means y.
And so I think that--
I feel very comfortable
saying, yeah,
no reasonable consumer thinks
that Miyoko's vegan cheese
products came from
a cow, because it
says in big letters vegan in
front of it, or whatever it is.
Or cheese alternative.
I mean, they use all of their--
these companies are pretty
good about saying, no this is
not cheese, this is not milk,
or it's nut milk.
It's almond milk.
And I just don't
think that people
who are buying almond
milk or soy milk
thinks that that came from
a soy cow, or an almond cow,
or whatever.
And it's possible,
but I just think--
and so there have--
I'm not aware of any cases where
standard false advertising laws
and consumer protection laws
have been successfully used
against soy milk producers.
And I think that's
because they would
be laughed out of court under
that reasonable consumer
standard.
And so it's actually part of
the litigation strategy, groups
who are challenging these
new laws that are coming out,
to say, oh no, by definition,
we the legislature in this dairy
state have decided that our poor
consumers may actually think
that the soy milk is from cows,
so we are going to just say,
we're going to declare
by fiat that it is
deceptive to label it as milk.
Part of the argument that
groups like ALDF make,
is saying we already
have consumer protection
laws for this.
Consumers aren't
actually being deceived.
Bring your claims in court
like everybody else has to.
Why do you get special--
why do you need the legislature
to define what this word means.
We have the reasonable
consumer standard.
That's what everybody else
has to do in this context.
And I think that's
a good argument.
I think they're right.
I think the consumer
data bears it out
that consumers don't think
that soy milk comes from cows.
And so that is a concern.
I wouldn't say it's
not a concern at all,
but I do think that
the benefits definitely
outweigh the cost [INAUDIBLE].
SPEAKER 2: I think there are
actually some cases in Europe
where they have
thought differently.
JAY SHOOSTER: Really?
SPEAKER 2: Which I thought was
insane, but in some states now
you have to call it
milk drink, would
be the literal translation.
JAY SHOOSTER: As a result of
consumer protection litigation,
or as a result of legislatures
that have decided [INAUDIBLE]..
SPEAKER 2: It was definitely
a judgment, not a legislature.
But I'm not sure about
the specific reasons,
but definitely the
outcome was that you--
JAY SHOOSTER: In
the United States?
SPEAKER 2: No, in Europe.
JAY SHOOSTER: Oh, OK.
Yeah.
SPEAKER 2: That you have to--
but there are testers, like
the reasonable customer
test is super similar.
JAY SHOOSTER: So, yeah.
I mean, yeah, I think that so
maybe it's more of a concern
than I realized.
I mean and I'm definitely
open to think [INAUDIBLE]
SPEAKER 2: I mean, I
was just as surprised.
JAY SHOOSTER: Although, I just
think at the end of the day,
I mean, I'm not sure how--
consumer protection law is going
to be there, whether we use it
for animals or not.
The reasonable consumer
standard is going to be there.
Everyone, for every product,
these laws are used.
So I'm not sure about how
our work necessarily--
I don't see us doing a
whole lot to strengthen
the institution of
consumer protection law,
just because we're such a
tiny player in all of that.
I could be-- I'm open to
being persuaded otherwise.
SPEAKER 5: Yeah, I'm
interested in whether you
have to make difficult
decisions about settling cases
as opposed to going
to a full trial,
because presumably you want to
have the judgment so that you
can have the facts
and so on out there.
But did the companies
always come out, and go, oh,
we'll fix it and whatever.
And, let's have a private
settlement agreement.
JAY SHOOSTER: Yeah,
so that's always
a huge factor in these cases.
And none of these cases
have ever gone to trial.
There's not-- I'm not aware
of a single humane animal
welfare-focused
consumer production case
that has actually gone to trial.
I mean, obviously that's
not unique to this type
of litigation.
In general, it's very rare.
So chances are if you have
10 cases, none of them
are going to go to trial.
But yeah, it's
definitely still--
trial aside, I mean,
there's a long time
you can settle before that.
And this is an
ever-present question
in the mind of the
organizations and the law firm,
about when and
whether to settle,
and what we're
willing to settle for.
This has definitely played
itself out in our cases
where we have to ask
these difficult questions.
Because wouldn't it be
awesome to have a court
just rule, for once.
Just say, yeah,
we actually found,
the judge actually found
that this advertising
was misleading.
Or better yet, that
this company was engaged
in inhumane practices, or a
jury that found this company
was engaging in those practices.
So yeah, it's compelling.
And I think there's a lot of
folks in this space that want
to take these cases to trial.
But these companies often are
able to offer a lot in return,
where-- these cases are so--
I mean, this is
inherently risky work,
just because there's
very little precedent.
So I think a lot
of organizations
might feel like,
even though it would
be awesome to take this
case to the finish line
and get a judgment, this company
is maybe offering us $1 million
in legal fees, and they're
going to get rid of the label,
and they're going to
sign on to animal welfare
auditing from now on.
And those things for certain--
and non-profits might say,
you know what, we're
willing to accept that.
SPEAKER 5: Do you push
for them to publish
corrective advertising,
or, you know--
JAY SHOOSTER: Yeah,
we always seek for--
SPEAKER 5: --something
where they say, hey,
we told a little fib, or--
JAY SHOOSTER: Yep.
So, yeah, that's always
part of the complaints
is the we seek
corrective advertising.
And it comes to pass
that in settlement there
will be a statement that either
the plaintiff or both parties
release that say--
I mean, I'm not aware of one
where the company totally
admitted fault. But
they're like, hey,
we were selling these
products that didn't
conform to our representations.
We have now put
this policy in place
to prevent that from
happening again.
And data actually, you
know, we had a case,
we had a case against
an egg producer
where they actually adopted a
third party auditing program
after we discovered that
their eggs were not actually
pasture-raised.
And so it seems like
they're pasture-raised now.
So yeah, there are
things like that.
But yeah, that's a
really good question.
So I could probably
continue blabbing about that
if you want to get
into the details.
SPEAKER 6: Hi, I'm
wondering if you're
working on the fur ban in
New York City, and if so how.
And also how could we start
doing that in Boston, too?
JAY SHOOSTER: So, I personally
am not working on the fur ban.
I know a lot of people who
are working on the fur ban,
and I could definitely put
you in touch with them,
and other people who have worked
on the California fur ban now,
and Berkeley and San Francisco.
So I could definitely
connect you
to folks who can tell you way
more than I could about that.
But yeah, I don't really
have the details there.
But you should definitely
get it going here.
SPEAKER 6: Yeah, thanks.
SPEAKER 7: Are seeing a
ripple effect in the industry
yet, from your lawsuits?
Are companies that
you haven't sued yet,
in your investigation,
or are they--
I mean, we know
they're not really
going to do anything
humanely about it.
Are they shifting
their language,
or are they adopting
some [INAUDIBLE] animal
welfare practices?
JAY SHOOSTER: I don't want to
give ourselves too much credit
here, but it does seem
that some of the companies
are getting savvier.
And yeah, they
are certain things
that they could do that
are extremely misleading,
but they just make it
harder as a legal matter
to pursue litigation.
And so they can get really
careful with how they say
certain things, or
as I said before,
they can put lots of misleading
claims on the labelling instead
of in the other marketing, and
where our hands are a lot more
tied as to what we
can do about it.
I am hesitating to reveal all
of the ways that they can do it.
But yeah, we can
talk about that.
There is a lot of disgusting,
reprehensible practices
that they use to continue
leading consumers to believe
the same things, but that give
them a little bit of an out.
I mean, one example
that I don't think
I'd be giving away
any big secret on,
is just by having a
third party auditor,
and never actually going out
to say that our products are
humane, but just
saying, our products
are certified humane
by this company.
I mean, it's a lot harder to
challenge just because then we
have to--
I mean, they were certified
humane, in air quotes.
And so the company
is saying, we're
not saying our
practices are humane.
We're just saying that
they were certified humane
by this company's standards.
And that's a lot harder
for us to go after,
even though, I mean,
it shouldn't be.
But it's just the fact
that it gives them
extra protection to bullshit.
[INAUDIBLE]
SPEAKER 1: So you mentioned
that you originally had funding,
I'm assuming philanthropic
funding, to start this.
Is this currently
self-sustaining
from legal fees, or do you
think it could be in the future?
JAY SHOOSTER: That
was the theory
that I pitched my funders on.
That at least it could
be, obviously no results
are guaranteed in a litigation.
But yeah, I mean,
we actually don't--
we work with all
of these groups,
and they never actually
pay us anything,
but we're not pro bono.
We're working on contingency.
Because all these consumer
protection statutes
have legal fees
provisions, that if we win,
then we're entitled
to our hourly rates
for all of the time that
we put into the case.
And part of the deal that we
have with the non-profits,
and it's as part of the
settlement negotiations,
we are able to negotiate a
fee for ourselves so that we
can continue doing the work.
So yeah, in theory it
should be self-sustaining.
Again, it's such
a new area of law.
There was there would
be no rigorous way
of telling somebody
the expected value of--
I mean, we could give a
very speculative answer
of the expected value
of one of these cases,
and how much I could
expect to make [INAUDIBLE]
So I can tell you,
I've certainly
racked up hundreds of
thousands of dollars in fees
since I've started
working on these cases.
And maybe I'll win one out
of every four of these cases.
I mean, who knows.
It's just so hard to say.
So I think I'm going to
win all of the cases.
But, we'll see.
In theory it could
be self-sustaining.
And the funding system that
I have set up is interesting,
and I'd definitely be
happy to chat with people
in more detail about this.
But basically, I'm getting
paid a below-market rate
for a private litigator,
about what you would be paid
if you were at a non-profit.
But the benefit
is that if I win,
then after I reimburse
the amount of grants
that I got from the donors
to a fiscal sponsor--
which a 501(c)(3) that basically
houses this fellowship that I
created--
after I reimburse them, then
I could collect the excess.
So that's how it works.
And then the thought is, I
can reimburse the fellowship
fee, the fellowship fund.
They can hire me another year.
They can hire you next year.
So in theory, yeah.
SPEAKER 8: That was
actually my question.
SPEAKER 9: Have
you won every case?
JAY SHOOSTER: I've
never lost a case.
I haven't won one yet, but
haven't lost one either.
SPEAKER 9: But
you've always been
able to settle in your favor.
JAY SHOOSTER: I--
SPEAKER 1: Maybe
in other words, are
you happy with the settlements
that you've gotten?
JAY SHOOSTER: So all the
cases that I've really
poured a lot of time into,
and all the animal cases,
are still in litigation.
So I don't, I mean, do you--
SPEAKER 9: Oh, I thought
you had settled something.
JAY SHOOSTER: So my firm has.
And before I-- right
before I joined,
they settled this case
against an egg company, which
is the only case that has really
concluded of our animal cases.
And we have 5, half
a dozen other cases
that are just still in
the middle of litigation,
in various stages.
I mean the most advanced
of any of our cases
is our case against
Hormel Foods.
We were supposed to
get a summary judgment
decision on this, but who
knows if we're actually
going to get one.
But that's the most--
that would be, I mean,
I think there's maybe one
other case that's ever
gotten that far in this space.
SPEAKER 9: So it's
very new, then.
JAY SHOOSTER: Yeah,
it's just very--
it is all very-- it's
really hard to say.
I still think we're
going to get it.
SPEAKER 4: So I'm just curious,
you mentioned at the beginning
that when you first
started being vegan
you were looking
for farms where it
was sufficiently humane, just so
you could buy from them anyway.
Is the settlement,
the deal on the case
that your firm recently
settled with the egg company,
good enough such that you would
purchase eggs from that company
now?
JAY SHOOSTER: I mean,
I can't answer that.
I mean, yeah we can talk
about that afterwards.
Yeah, but I mean, I
guess I could just
say as a general
matter, there is no way
to economically
produce animal products
in a way that's humane.
I feel very confident
with [INAUDIBLE]
Certainly that I think
meets my standards,
and most people I
know's standards, of how
animals should be treated.
There's no way it could be
produced at a profitable rate
without--
yeah, just.
I mean, just one
example, I think
that makes that-- that I
like to point out to people.
I have chickens.
I live with chickens
who are rescued.
And if a chicken gets sick,
we bring them to the vet,
because we're not monsters.
And when you bring
them to the vet
because they get sick, because
you're a reasonable person,
the vet bill is going to
cost hundreds of dollars.
Chickens get sick.
That is just a fact of life.
So if you believe that animals
deserve veterinary care,
then I think just by
that alone, I mean,
it's just not going to ever be
economically feasible to raise
animals for people
to eat their bodies
or their eggs or [INAUDIBLE]
So that's my general thought.
SPEAKER 1: I guess I
have another question.
So I'm interested in this
whole fact-finding function
that your litigation serves.
Right, so you said
that you rely partially
on third parties or your
own private investigations,
but also on stuff you
learn from discovery.
So I have a couple of
questions about that.
So one, what do you
think the breakdown
is between how important
those are to you.
And then secondly, if
as an animal advocate,
I mostly still rely on MFA
or private investigations
from MFA, or whatever.
Do you ever foresee
a day where a lot
of the discovery that you're
doing will become public?
JAY SHOOSTER: Yeah, and so that
actually is a good question.
We learn all this
stuff internally,
but then we're
limited as to what
we can do with it, because
these companies just
claim that everything is
highly confidential, even
if it literally has no bearing
on their business practices.
I mean, why should a picture
of a decapitated chicken--
if everybody is using
the same standard,
what is this-- how
could this possibly
be highly confidential.
But, they've
designated it as such.
And then to actually get
it into a court filing,
you have to create some
kind of legal issue
that even requires
it to get into,
to even litigate the
question of whether it
should be confidential or not,
or whether it should be sealed.
And even then, we're
facing this right now
with our summary
judgment motion,
in theory if we lose on summary
judgment, the judge decides--
maybe we lose on standing.
And she didn't need to
look at any of the facts
to determine-- any of the
facts of the production facts--
to determine whether we
have standing or not,
all of that information
could just go back.
It will never be unsealed.
That being said,
even in this case,
when we've built such a
large volume of documents
that there's some stuff
that is already public, just
because we--
because the other side just
didn't designate everything.
In particular we had a--
you create-- does
everyone know what
a statement of undisputed
material facts is?
I mean, just briefly, it's a--
the judge is deciding
basically whether,
on summary judgment, whether
there's any kind of material
disputed fact in the case.
And so the parties
write down, they
make a list of all the
facts that they allege,
where there's no possible
reasonable dispute based
on this.
And in our Hormel case, Hormel
responded to our long list,
basically saying, this
is true, this isn't true.
And adding a lot of
detail along the way.
And a lot of that I
think is all public,
or-- no it's not all public.
A lot of it was not redacted.
And so there's a
lot of that that's
already in the public record.
But yeah, it's not as easy
as getting information.
There is no direct connection
to getting it and making
it public.
But over time there are
lots of things that we've
learned through discovery.
Like we learned the
existence of the document
that the government
creates that monitors
for antibiotic resistant
pathogens that are detected
in slaughterhouses.
No one had ever seen
this document before.
It'd never been FOIAed before.
No one knew that it existed.
No one even knew the government
was doing this, really,
with this level of granularity.
And we learned about it
through the litigation,
and we FOIAed for every
one that they've ever done.
And now we have those
documents, and soon they're
going to become public.
And so there are
things like that,
that in theory, as we learn
more about what's out there,
we will be able to--
we'll have to rely
less on the industry.
Although the industry, of
course, will fight back.
Who knows, after we
make these public,
the industry might decide
to push back and make sure
that no one can ever get these
kinds of documents again.
But yeah.
It's a fight, but we are
getting it out there.
And I think it's going to--
a lot could happen in
the next few months
with our Hormel case, where
a lot of these documents
become public.
SPEAKER 8: I guess my question
is besides maybe eating
vegan or coming and
working for you, what
can we as law
students or others do,
if you were quarterbacking this
offensive against the industry.
Where would the resources
best be employed [INAUDIBLE]
JAY SHOOSTER: I mean, there
are so, so many things.
I mean, I don't even
know where to begin.
The legislative work that you're
talking about with the fur ban,
I mean, there's so
much legislative work
that can be done.
There's so many super egregious
practices I just think
are ripe for activism.
Just to take one-- and not just
at the local level or the state
level, but even within
a powerful institution
like Harvard Law School.
I think there's a lot you
could do to push the school.
Maybe I'm overly
optimistic here.
But at least within
my little Center
for Human Rights and
Global Justice at NYU,
where I worked,
by the time I left
they had a vegetarian
food policy, because I
forced that discussion.
And it happened.
It's not to say that
a vegetarian food
policy is necessarily feasible
at the level of Harvard.
But I don't know, take
some of the things
that we've talked about.
I mean, should Harvard
have a policy where
it doesn't purchase any
meat from a slaughter plant
where multidrug resistant
pathogens detect--
resistant to highly--
to critical antibiotics
were detected.
I mean, would that be a
policy that we could push for?
I mean, I--
SPEAKER 10: They're actually
working on that now.
The business school's
about to announce that.
JAY SHOOSTER: OK, so I feel
like I can see the future.
But yeah, there
are certain things
that are just so egregious.
Or like cutting
people's testicles
off without painkillers.
How can any-- how do we allow
these fancy Harvard law people,
or any legislator, how do we
allow anybody to walk around
this earth, and without
shame of the fact
that they are buying products
with unequivocal animal
torture.
Like piglets having
their testicles
cut off without painkillers.
Why does a school allow--
why do they purchase
products that they
know come from facilities
that use these practices.
And they might say
they don't know,
in which case let's
get these companies,
or let's have
institutions like this,
at a minimum they should
ask these questions
and make the information public.
And so another thing that we've
seen through the litigation
is Berkeley has a food
policy, apparently,
where they ask these companies
about certain of their animal
welfare practices.
They don't tell
anybody about what
they learned from
all these companies,
but we should get
that information.
And we should also
require-- at a minimum,
these school should know
whether their suppliers use
gestation crates, or
whatever else it is.
I mean, I think we
could actually push
these schools to stop doing it.
I like to believe
that that's possible.
But at a minimum, they should
be asking that information,
and we should be getting
that from people.
So I don't know, I
could go on and on.
I mean, there's so many
campaigns that are possible.
But yeah, there's a
lot of just general--
if you're a creative there's
a lot of institutions
that you could change, and
a lot of different campaigns
that I think are worthwhile.
And as I was saying before,
I mean, the work that we do
is really not rocket science.
I could sit down with
you in an afternoon
and show you how to basically
build a false advertising
action against somebody.
And there's just so many--
if you just are really dedicated
and obsessed with this,
you can really do a lot.
I don't know if that's
a helpful answer.
SPEAKER 1: So we're at the hour.
Chris, this is being
recorded for ALPP, but--
