First Amendment-Trade Libel

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Jewel Sanitary Napkins, LLC v. Busy Beaver Publications, LLC

Case No.: 25-1905

Officials: Brennan, Chief Judge, and Ripple and Taibleson, Circuit Judges.

Focus: First Amendment-Trade Libel

Jewel Sanitary Napkins, a Georgia-based company, sells feminine hygiene products that it claims offer health benefits, including items containing graphene. The company cultivated a customer base within the Amish community and promoted its products through Busy Beaver Publications, which distributes regional advertising papers to that audience.

In August 2022, Busy Beaver published an ad submitted by a reader, Betty Lantz, questioning the safety of Jewel’s products. The ad suggested that graphene could attract electrical waves or radiation, potentially posing health risks. At Lantz’s request, the ad was published anonymously. Jewel argued that the ad contained false statements and harmed its reputation.

Following the publication, Jewel contacted Busy Beaver to request a retraction. In line with its policy of not issuing retractions, Busy Beaver instead offered free advertising space, which Jewel declined. Jewel then filed a lawsuit in the Western District of Wisconsin, alleging libel and trade libel. During discovery, Jewel requested the original ad submission. Busy Beaver initially believed the form had been destroyed according to its standard practice but later obtained it from Lantz and provided it to Jewel. Jewel withdrew a related spoliation motion but subsequently sought sanctions due to the delay. The district court denied Jewel’s motions, including a request to reopen summary judgment briefing, and granted summary judgment to Busy Beaver.

The Seventh Circuit reviewed the case de novo, applied Wisconsin law and the First Amendment standard for public figures, and found that  Jewel failed to show that Busy Beaver acted with actual malice in publishing the ad. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying sanctions.

Affirmed.

Decided 06/10/26

Full Text