Calif. High Court Won't Review 'Happy Cows' Case

The California Supreme Court will not review a ruling that blocked a false-advertising suit against the California Milk Producers Advisory Board and its "Happy Cows" marketing campaign.

The action high court turned down a petition for review filed by animal-rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

The petition stemmed from a California Court of Appeal decision that determined the Milk Producers Advisory Board is not a "person" under the state's unfair-competition law and thus could not be sued.

PETA filed the suit in San Francisco County Superior Court, alleging that the MPAB's "Happy Cows" advertising campaign was false and misleading.

The television commercials and print ads — all carrying the slogan "Great cheese comes from happy cows. Happy cows come from California." — featured talking bovines cavorting in sunny pastures.

Far from enjoying the idyllic existence depicted in the ads, PETA's suit charged, most California dairy cows spend their lives in dry dirt lots while being repeatedly impregnated and then eventually slaughtered.

The trial court dismissed the case, holding that the MPAB was not a "person" as that term is used in the unfair-competition law, and thus it could not be sued for false advertising. PETA appealed.

A panel of the California 1st District Court of Appeal affirmed in an opinion by Associate Justice Ignazio Ruvolo, joined by Presiding Justice J. Anthony Kline and Associate Justice Paul R. Haerle.

The panel explained that the unfair-competition law authorizes injunctive relief, like that sought by PETA, against "any person" and defines "person" as "natural persons, corporations, firms, partnerships, joint stock companies, associations and other organizations of persons."

The MPAB is a public entity, and public entities are not included in the law's definition of "person," the panel said.

PETA argued it should still be allowed to proceed because public entities are excluded from the unfair-competition law's definition of "person" only to the extent that a lawsuit would interfere with the entity's exercise of its sovereign powers.

The panel disagreed, saying MPAB's purpose is to promote the state's dairy industry and increase sales of its products.

"[W]e have no hesitancy in concluding there would indeed be an 'infringement of sovereign power' for the [board] to be subject to suit under the [unfair-competition law] for the content of one of its promotional campaigns," the panel said.