In a verdict that has stirred debate across the country, Zoe Rosenberg, a 23-year-old animal rights activist and student at the University of California, Berkeley, was found guilty on October 29, 2025, of felony conspiracy, two misdemeanor counts of trespassing, and a misdemeanor count of tampering with a vehicle. The charges stem from her highly publicized 2023 break-in at Petaluma Poultry, a subsidiary of Perdue Farms, in Sonoma County, California, where she took four chickens she claimed were being mistreated.
The nearly seven-week trial, held in the agricultural heart of Northern California, drew intense interest from both animal rights groups and the farming industry. Rosenberg is a prominent member of Direct Action Everywhere (DxE), a Berkeley-based group known for its bold and sometimes controversial tactics, including breaking into farms to document and rescue animals they allege are being abused.
Rosenberg never denied her actions. Instead, she positioned herself as a rescuer, not a thief. "I will not apologize for taking sick, neglected animals to get medical care," Rosenberg declared following her conviction, as reported by the Associated Press. "When we see cruelty and violence, we can choose to ignore it or to intervene and try to make the world a better place. I chose to intervene, and because I did, Poppy, Ivy, Aster, and Azalea are alive today. For that, I will never be sorry." The four chickens, whom Rosenberg named, are now living at an animal sanctuary, according to her statements and confirmation from DxE.
During the trial, Rosenberg testified that she disguised herself as a Petaluma Poultry worker, using a fake badge and earpiece, to gain access to the facility. She later posted a video of her actions on social media, further fueling public attention and debate. She described the animals she took as "covered in wounds and scratches, had infections in the pads of feet, and were struggling to breathe." She also claimed to have witnessed evidence that some birds were being scalded alive due to the speed of the slaughter lines.
After the verdict, Rosenberg walked out of court wearing an ankle monitor, greeted by supporters holding signs reading "Prosecute Petaluma Poultry" and "Right to Rescue." She told the crowd she would immediately report animal cruelty at Petaluma Poultry to the Sonoma County Sheriff's Office, continuing her campaign even as she faced sentencing.
The legal and ethical issues at the heart of the case have polarized the community. Rosenberg's attorney, Chris Carraway, sharply criticized the prosecution, saying, "Sonoma County spent over six weeks and hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to protect a multi-billion-dollar corporation from the rescue of four chickens worth less than $25." He added, "No doubt, the District Attorney's office would never have spent a fraction of this time or money if the chickens had been dead in a supermarket meat case." Carraway and the Animal Activist Legal Defense Fund argued that prosecutors ignored extensive documentation of animal cruelty at the facility, and they plan to appeal the verdict.
On the other side, Sonoma County District Attorney Carla Rodriguez emphasized that the law must be upheld, regardless of one's beliefs or cause. In a prepared statement, Rodriguez said, "While we respect everyone's right to free expression, it is unlawful to trespass, disrupt legitimate businesses, and endanger workers and animals in pursuit of a political or social agenda." She continued, "The court system exists to uphold justice—not to serve as a stage for self-promotion or lawless behavior. We will continue to hold individuals accountable when they cross that line."
Petaluma Poultry, owned by Perdue Farms—one of the largest poultry producers in the United States—categorically denied any mistreatment of its animals. Herb Frerichs, general counsel for the company, stated, "The jury's verdict makes it clear: personal beliefs don't justify breaking the law. DxE members admitted to planning and carrying out illegal acts—including break-ins, theft of private data, and stealing livestock—under the guise of activism and to gain publicity." The company has described DxE as an extremist group intent on destroying the animal agriculture industry, while also affirming its support for lawful protest and free speech.
The broader farming community echoed these sentiments. Dayna Ghirardell, executive director of the Sonoma County Farm Bureau, remarked, "For years, DxE has harassed farm families and workers, trespassed on private property, and stolen from local businesses. Our community has consistently rejected their extreme tactics, and this verdict reinforces that. Farming and poultry production are cornerstones of life in Sonoma County—and they deserve our continued respect, support, and protection."
This case also comes amid a shifting legal landscape for animal rights activism. In recent years, some DxE activists have been acquitted by juries even after admitting to taking animals, as in a 2023 Central Valley case where activists were found not guilty after taking two chickens from a Foster Farms slaughterhouse. The contrast between that outcome and Rosenberg's conviction in the more liberal Sonoma County has puzzled some observers. David McCuan, a political science professor at Sonoma State University, commented to The New York Times, "These animal activists will have to reconsider their responses, their actions, and activism for the future. This is an inflection moment."
For animal rights advocates, the guilty verdict is a setback, though not necessarily a deterrent. DxE has signaled it will continue its activities, and Rosenberg's team has already announced plans to appeal. Supporters see Rosenberg as a principled activist willing to risk her freedom for the welfare of animals, while critics argue that her actions undermine the rule of law and threaten the livelihoods of local farmers.
Rosenberg is scheduled to be sentenced on December 3, 2025, and faces a maximum jail sentence of four and a half years. The outcome of her appeal, and the broader impact on animal rights activism and agricultural practices, remain to be seen. For now, the case stands as a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over the limits of activism, the responsibilities of industry, and the evolving relationship between humans and the animals they raise for food.
As the dust settles in Sonoma County, all eyes are on what comes next—for Rosenberg, for the animal rights movement, and for the future of farming in California and beyond.
