Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Recent Developments in Anti-SLAPP Cases for Determining Protected Activities

By Edward E. Weiman
June 29, 2012

In the last three years, there have been a number of decisions issued by California courts on anti-SLAPP motions filed in response to lawsuits arising out of the publication and/or distribution of entertainment works. Indeed, since July 2009 alone there have been decisions in lawsuits regarding works in virtually every medium, including television, film, radio, magazines, books, video games and Internet sites. In each one of these cases, the court was tasked with deciding whether the statements or conduct at issue in the lawsuit arose out of activity protected by California's anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (anti-SLAPP statute). In light of the burgeoning number of states that have adopted anti-SLAPP statutes since Washington state enacted the first modern anti-SLAPP statute in 1989, it is important to review the recent developments in this area.

The basics of anti-SLAPP procedure are well-known to most entertainment and media practitioners at this point. In California, a defendant carries the initial burden to prove that its conduct is covered by the anti-SLAPP statute by showing that the plaintiff's claim arises from “any act of [defendant] in furtherance of [its] right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code '425.16(b)(1). If so, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on his or her claims. Id. In order to do so, “the plaintiff must show that the complaint is legally sufficient and must present a prima facie showing of facts that, if believed by the trier of fact, would support a judgment in the plaintiff's favor.” Hall v. Time Warner, Inc., 153 Cal. App. 4th 1337, 1346 (2007) (emphasis added). If the plaintiff meets this burden, “the moving defendant can defeat the plaintiff's evidentiary showing only if the defendant's evidence establishes as a matter of law that the plaintiff cannot prevail.” Id.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

The Bankruptcy Hotline Image

Recent cases of importance to your practice.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

How AI Has Affected PR Image

When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.