To establish organizational standing, the plaintiff associations needed to show that the challenged conduct frustrated their organizational missions and that they diverted resources to combat that conduct. Diversion of resources happens when the plaintiffs alter their resource allocation to combat the challenged practices, but not when they go about their business as usual. Here, the evidence on defendant’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, brought after two years of discovery, disclosed that plaintiff organizations had not diverted assets as a result of combatting defendant’s allegedly false advertising of its chicken products as 100% natural (despite feeding the chickens antibiotics). On a Rule 12(b)(1) motion attacking jurisdiction on a ground unrelated to the merits of the claim, the trial judge weighs the evidence and determines the facts. Here, the judge did not abuse his discretion in determining that plaintiffs’ declarations which contradicted their deposition testimony was unworthy of belief.