FilmOn.com Inc. v. Doubleverify Inc., No. S244157 (Cal. May 6, 2019)
The California Supreme Court has granted review of a number of important cases dealing with Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16(e)(4)—the anti-SLAPP-statute’s “catchall” provision. This is a big one.
Showing posts with label issue of public concern. Show all posts
Showing posts with label issue of public concern. Show all posts
Monday, June 10, 2019
Monday, August 28, 2017
The Public Issue Standard in a Post-Truth World
Filmon.com v. Doubleverify, Inc., No. B264074 (D2d3 Jul. 25, 2017)
Defendant here sells some kind of service where it sniffs out whether adbuys on the Internet are really effective. One part of this service is to uncover whether the sites on which its customers’ ads are displayed have adult content or are commonly used as channels for copyright infringement. Defendant rated Plaintiff’s site—which purports to be a free and legal content streaming site—as containing both of those things. Plaintiff sued Defendant for various libel-ish torts. Defendant filed an anti-SLAPP motion, which the trial court granted. Plaintiff appeals.
Defendant here sells some kind of service where it sniffs out whether adbuys on the Internet are really effective. One part of this service is to uncover whether the sites on which its customers’ ads are displayed have adult content or are commonly used as channels for copyright infringement. Defendant rated Plaintiff’s site—which purports to be a free and legal content streaming site—as containing both of those things. Plaintiff sued Defendant for various libel-ish torts. Defendant filed an anti-SLAPP motion, which the trial court granted. Plaintiff appeals.
Wednesday, December 28, 2016
Too Narrow to Be a Public Issue
Dual Diagnosis Treatment Cntr. v. Buschel, No. G053046 (D3d2 Dec. 20, 2016)
The trial court in this case denied an anti-SLAPP motion addressed to libel claims brought against the publisher of a drug treatment community newsletter. The claims were based on the newsletter’s republication of a story from the OC Register that reported that a drug treatment facility was not properly licensed in California. The Court of Appeal affirms, holding that the licensure status of an individual treatment facility, without more, is not a public issue sufficient for the claims to arise from protected activity under Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16(e)(3). That provision protects written statements in a public forum, but only to the extent that they relate to a public issue.
Affirmed.
The trial court in this case denied an anti-SLAPP motion addressed to libel claims brought against the publisher of a drug treatment community newsletter. The claims were based on the newsletter’s republication of a story from the OC Register that reported that a drug treatment facility was not properly licensed in California. The Court of Appeal affirms, holding that the licensure status of an individual treatment facility, without more, is not a public issue sufficient for the claims to arise from protected activity under Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16(e)(3). That provision protects written statements in a public forum, but only to the extent that they relate to a public issue.
Affirmed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)