This week on Weird and Wacky Wednesdays: Pink Slime edition
The law of defamation is particularly difficult to pin down. Even in law school, professors were reluctant to discuss it because the trends in the cases are hard to discern. Decisions regarding what constitutes defamation and whether it is actionable, as well as what would be considered reasonable damages, seem to be completely different from one jurisdiction to the next, from one judge to the next, and even when comparing two comparable cases.
Lawyers I know who practiced defamation either moved on to a different practice area or quit practicing law because they felt they could not properly advise their clients or give a clear statement of the probability of success bearing in mind the fickle decisions from the courts.
This week on Weird and Wacky Wednesdays we turn our attention to food defamation. Lawsuits often arise from something someone said (see my recent TikTok regarding Mayor Ken Sim). Today we discuss “Pink Slime,” snack food (my favourite topic) and fashion models drinking nothing but water. Let’s get started!
Spread around the pink slime?
We begin with what is perhaps the most infamous food defamation case in history: the pink slime saga. Back in 2012, ABC News ran a series of stories calling attention to “lean finely textured beef,” a filler product used in ground beef and nicknamed “pink slime.” The nickname stuck, and so did public disgust. Sales plummeted. Beef Products Inc., the South Dakota company that made the filler, filed a $1.9 billion defamation suit against ABC, alleging the reporting misled consumers into believing their product was unsafe and not really beef. Five years later, in 2017, Disney (ABC’s parent company) settled the case by paying BPI $177 million. It was one of the largest defamation settlements in U.S. history.
Flaming hot? Or not?
Richard Montañez, a former janitor turned PepsiCo executive, made headlines and book deals with his claim that he invented the spicy snack while cleaning floors and thinking big. But in 2021, PepsiCo and Frito-Lay issued statements that cast doubt on his story, suggesting instead that Flamin’ Hot Cheetos were developed by a team in Texas. That led Montañez to file a lawsuit in July 2024, alleging defamation, fraud, and unfair competition. He argues the company’s denials damaged his reputation, especially after years of being praised as the brains behind the brand. The case is still winding its way through court.
Italian fashion model dietary needs
San Benedetto, the Italian bottled water company, didn’t take kindly to criticism of one of their TV ad campaigns. The commercial featured model Elisabetta Canalis skipping breakfast and sipping water, with the suggestion that this was part of her beauty routine. A food publication, Il Fatto Alimentare, accused the company of promoting unhealthy behaviour. San Benedetto sued them for €1.5 million in damages. But in May 2025, a court in Venice tossed the claim and ordered the water company to pay €11,000 in legal costs. The judge ruled that the critique was fair comment, and not defamatory.
If you’re thinking of skipping breakfast, claiming (rightly or wrongly) that you invented a snack food, or daring to call something pink slime, just know—you might end up in court.
