Brodeur v. Atlas Entertainment CA2/8, 248 Cal. App. 4th 665

Background

Plaintiff Paul Brodeur is a well‑known environmental author whose 1970s writings questioned microwave safety; defendants produced and distributed the film American Hustle (set in 1978).
In a comedic scene a character (Rosalyn), portrayed as “slightly unhinged,” tells her husband she read an article “By Paul Brodeur” saying a microwave “takes all of the nutrition out of our food.”
Brodeur sued for libel, defamation, slander and false light, alleging he never made that statement and that the film misquoted him, harming his reputation.
Defendants moved to strike under California’s anti‑SLAPP statute (§ 425.16), arguing the film and the scene concern matters of public interest and Brodeur could not show a probability of prevailing.
Trial court denied the motion; on appeal the Court of Appeal reviewed de novo, received judicial notice of film reviews and historical materials, and considered whether the speech was protected and whether Brodeur produced admissible evidence of falsity and malice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the allegedly defamatory line is speech "in connection with a public issue" under the anti‑SLAPP statute	Brodeur: the scene is unrelated to the film’s public‑interest subject (Abscam/culture) so anti‑SLAPP does not apply; focus should be on the specific disputed words	Defendants: movie and the depicted 1970s culture (including microwave safety debate) are matters of public interest; the scene is part of protected creative expression	Held: The scene is protected—movies and the era’s microwave controversy are matters of public interest; anti‑SLAPP first prong satisfied
Whether Brodeur produced admissible evidence of falsity	Brodeur: the film attributes a specific statement to him that is objectively false and damaging; cites a People Magazine interview and his publications to show he wouldn’t have said that	Defendants: Brodeur submitted no declaration denying the quote; contemporaneous sources do not show he made that statement; FDA material shows the line is factually false today but not that Brodeur ever said it in the 1970s	Held: Brodeur failed to produce admissible prima facie evidence he never made the statement; no competent evidence of falsity
Whether the line is reasonably susceptible of defamatory meaning	Brodeur: viewers could take the line as a factual attribution to him	Defendants: the film is a farce; the speaker is an unreliable, ditzy character; reasonable viewers would not expect an objective factual assertion	Held: The line, in context, would not be read as an assertion of verifiable fact; not reasonably susceptible of defamatory meaning
Whether, as a public figure, Brodeur showed actual malice	Brodeur: implied malice from attributing the claim to him in the film	Defendants: no evidence of knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard; Brodeur produced no evidence showing malice	Held: Brodeur failed to show the required evidence of actual malice; thus no probability of prevailing

Key Cases Cited

Dyer v. Childress, 147 Cal. App. 4th 1273 (distinguishing private‑figure persona claims in films from public‑interest creative works)
Nygard, Inc. v. Uusi‑Kerttula, 159 Cal. App. 4th 1027 (broad definition of "issue of public interest")
Tamkin v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc., 193 Cal. App. 4th 133 (public interest in creation/casting/broadcasting; do not dissect creative process)
Lyle v. Warner Bros. Television Prods., 38 Cal. 4th 264 (protecting creative process; concurring discussion quoted)
Baker v. Los Angeles Herald Examiner, 42 Cal. 3d 254 (context can negate defamatory meaning)
Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496 (distinguishing quotations in literary and docudramatic contexts)
Taus v. Loftus, 40 Cal. 4th 683 (anti‑SLAPP second‑stage standard for showing probability of prevailing)
Equilon Enters. v. Consumer Cause, Inc., 29 Cal. 4th 53 (two‑step anti‑SLAPP framework)
Gilbert v. Sykes, 147 Cal. App. 4th 13 (failure of defamation claim defeats related claims)