🤤
Civil Procedure • Motions to Strike
CIVPRO#048
Legal Definition
There are 2 exceptions: (1) actions brought solely in the public interest or on behalf of the general public, and (2) actions brought against sellers of goods or services who make representations about their business or a competitor's business.
Plain English Explanation
In California, Anti-SLAPP motions are designed to stop lawsuits that try to punish someone for exercising their free speech or legal rights. However, there are two key exceptions where these motions don’t apply, meaning the lawsuit can still move forward:
(1) Public interest or general public actions: If someone files a lawsuit to protect the public interest or benefit the general public, Anti-SLAPP motions don’t apply. This usually happens when a person or group is not suing for personal gain but to address a larger issue, such as stopping harmful environmental practices or protecting consumer rights. The law ensures that these types of cases can proceed without being blocked by Anti-SLAPP motions.
(2) Business-related lawsuits: Anti-SLAPP protections also don’t apply when a lawsuit involves a business making statements about its own products or about a competitor’s products. For example, imagine a company called "GreenClean" that sells eco-friendly cleaning products. GreenClean starts falsely advertising that its competitor, "CleanPro," uses harmful chemicals in its products. CleanPro then sues GreenClean for false advertising and defamation, claiming these false statements hurt their business. Even though GreenClean might argue that its advertising is protected speech, the lawsuit can still move forward because it involves false statements about products—one of the exceptions to Anti-SLAPP protections.
(1) Public interest or general public actions: If someone files a lawsuit to protect the public interest or benefit the general public, Anti-SLAPP motions don’t apply. This usually happens when a person or group is not suing for personal gain but to address a larger issue, such as stopping harmful environmental practices or protecting consumer rights. The law ensures that these types of cases can proceed without being blocked by Anti-SLAPP motions.
(2) Business-related lawsuits: Anti-SLAPP protections also don’t apply when a lawsuit involves a business making statements about its own products or about a competitor’s products. For example, imagine a company called "GreenClean" that sells eco-friendly cleaning products. GreenClean starts falsely advertising that its competitor, "CleanPro," uses harmful chemicals in its products. CleanPro then sues GreenClean for false advertising and defamation, claiming these false statements hurt their business. Even though GreenClean might argue that its advertising is protected speech, the lawsuit can still move forward because it involves false statements about products—one of the exceptions to Anti-SLAPP protections.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Bob owns a popular slaughterhouse that specializes in raising the most adorable, delicious type of veal in California. Sam runs a vegan blog that writes an article exposing how Bob's slaughterhouse poorly treats animals. Bob is furious and sues Sam for $1 million dollars, claiming that Sam has defamed him personally and caused damage to his business. Result: Bob is clearly trying to censor Sam's First Amendment speech by suing him into silence. This could be considered a SLAPP suit, which would allow Sam to file an anti-SLAPP motion.
Hypo 2: Bob owns a popular slaughterhouse that specializes in raising veal. Amy owns a law firm. Amy puts out an advertisement that says, "If anyone has eaten veal from Bob's Farm, you may be entitled to monetary compensation." Bob sees the ad and sues Amy for libel. In court, Amy attempts to invoke anti-SLAPP protections. Result: Amy is not protected under the anti-SLAPP statute because her statements were made while advertising her services and making representations about another business.
Hypo 2: Bob owns a popular slaughterhouse that specializes in raising veal. Amy owns a law firm. Amy puts out an advertisement that says, "If anyone has eaten veal from Bob's Farm, you may be entitled to monetary compensation." Bob sees the ad and sues Amy for libel. In court, Amy attempts to invoke anti-SLAPP protections. Result: Amy is not protected under the anti-SLAPP statute because her statements were made while advertising her services and making representations about another business.
