Shama Lee against the New Zealand Herald
Case Number: 3724
Council Meeting: 3 June 2025
Decision: Upheld
Publication: New Zealand Herald
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Corrections
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Errors
Overview
1. On 8 April 2024 NZ Herald published the article Chicken-free chicken maker Sunfed Meat shuts: What went wrong and on 23 May 2024 Liquidator appointed for chicken-free chicken maker Sunfed: What went wrong. The articles relate to closure of Sunfed Meats (producer of chicken-free chicken), providing commentary on the demise of the company including details of shareholders, their investments and the state of the meat-free industry. Mention in the 23 May article is made of the appointed liquidators.
2. Shama Lee, founder of Sunfed Meats, complains that as no liquidator was appointed, but rather the company was in a process of a solvent winding down, the article was factually incorrect. The 23 May article was removed without correction and to date, no retraction has been published. The complaint is upheld under Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance and Principle (12) Corrections.
The Article
3. On 8 April 2024, the NZ Herald published the article Chicken-free chicken maker Sunfed Meat shuts: What went wrong. This article announces that Sunfed is “shutting up shop, after burning through $10 million in investor’s cash”. It includes details of the company’s capital raising and revenue, and an analysis as to the company’s demise (COVID costs and disruption and lack of additional investor support). Details of Australian supermarkets that stocked and then de-stocked the product, as well as pricing are included, as is commentary of the plant-based meat industry.
4. The article, Liquidator appointed for chicken-free chicken maker Sunfed: What went wrong was then published on 23 May 2024. It names the liquidators and outlines the reason for the company's demise (including a slump in demand for plant-based meat, high interest rates and COVID supply challenges). Details of the capital raised in 2018, Sunfed’s product and pricing are included as well as an analysis of the plant-based meat industry. It is accompanied by a photo of the founder holding her product in the form of a chicken burger.
The Complaint
5. The initial complaint was made by Ms Lee’s lawyers on her behalf on the morning of 23 May 2024 asking for the immediate withdrawal of the article Liquidator appointed for chicken- free chicken maker Sunfed: What went wrong. No liquidators had been appointed, and the company was not in any form of external administration.
6. The NZME journalist responded immediately apologising for ‘crossed wires’ and said they would immediately unpublish the article. The matter was then passed to NZME General Counsel, who responded on the afternoon of the 23rd by stating that the story had been removed, it was deleted from the journalist’s LinkedIn and a request to Google to de-index had been made. It went further to admit the story was incorrect, and did not meet the high standards they set for themselves. The General Counsel also offered the publication of an apology and retraction with due prominence.
7. Correspondence between 24 May and 7 June between Ms Lee’s lawyer and NZME General Counsel shows that there was debate over potential compensation and wording over the retraction with no agreement reached and no retraction or apology published.
8. Within the correspondence, two further points were raised. Ms Lee complains about the use of her photograph as a breach of her privacy and that the phrase “burn through $10 million cash” infers mismanagement when the cash was invested in 2018 and as such is inaccurate.
9. Ms Lee followed up on 31 December 2024 asking for action. NZME responded on 28 January stating that they had made an offer of a retraction that had not been accepted and did not respond to Ms Lee’s follow up on 29 January asking for corrective action.
The Response
10. NZME accepts the article published on 23 May contained inaccuracies. They removed the article immediately and state that they immediately engaged in good faith settlement negotiations. An amended article remains on their site as they contend that the closure of Sunfed is of public interest.
11. They state because they were in negotiations with Ms Lee and no agreement had been reached, that they could not publish a retraction.
12. They respond that ‘burning through some $10 million investment cash without reaching profit’ statement is accurate and newsworthy.
The Discussion
13. The Media Council has agreed to accept Ms Lee’s complaint even though it has been made outside the usual timeframe for referring a complaint to Council. The original complaint to NZME was raised within the time limits prescribed, but the complaint was not referred to the Media Council within the 20 working days’ time limits. Ms Lee said she believed that the correction had been published, had been distracted by the winding up of her business and had only realised that the apology had not been published months later. When bringing her complaint to the Media Council, Ms Lee raised several other concerns about the articles. The Media Council did not consider these matters, as they were not raised in the original complaint and are therefore well outside the Council’s time limits. The Media Council is only considering matters raised in the original complaint.
14. That the 23 May article’s reference to a liquidator is inaccurate is not in dispute. NZME acknowledged the seriousness of the error and unpublished the article immediately and offered an apology and retraction. To state erroneously that a company has had externally appointed liquidators brings the competence of its directors into question, when instead the company was voluntarily winding up.
15. The use of the phrase “burning through some $10 million investment cash without reaching profit” is viewed as a fair description by the Media Council, even though Ms Lee would have found it objectionable. The $10 million had been used up, and the phrase “burned through” was graphic but not inaccurate since the money had been spent, and the company was closing down.
16. The use of her photo with her product is also not seen as a breach of her privacy. It was a photo from a happier time, but the use of historic photos to illustrate an article is acceptable, providing there is nothing misleading about them. The right to privacy is not absolute when topical events are reported, and a photo of a person in the centre of the reported event is used in the report.
17. We return to the serious error of describing the company as “in liquidation”. Irrespective of any legal processes it engages in, NZME is bound by the Media Council principles. Principle (12) Corrections states significant errors should be promptly corrected with fair prominence. While the Council understands NZME’s wish to not jeopardise legal discussions, once an impasse was reached, it should have not only removed the article as it did, but published a correction with similar prominence to the story containing the error to fix the false and damaging statement without delay. It is important that the error is drawn to the attention of readers who would have seen the original article.
18. The onus for correction is not on the complainant. It sits clearly with the publication. NZME has the obligation to correct significant errors promptly. It chose not to do so in this case. That its legal settlement and negotiations with the complainant had failed to reach agreement gave NZME no reason not to correct its error, particularly given the seriousness of this one.
Decision: The complaint is Upheld unanimously under Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance and Principle (12) Corrections.
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Jo Cribb, Judi Jones, Marie Shroff, Alison Thom, Richard Pamatatau, Hank Schouten, Rosemary Barraclough, Tim Watkin
Scott Inglis declared a conflict of interest and did not vote