Filmon.Com. Inc. v. Doubleverify Inc.
246 Cal. Rptr. 3d 591
| Cal. | 2019Background
- FilmOn.com (plaintiff) operates web-based entertainment sites; DoubleVerify (defendant) sells paid, confidential site-auditing reports (including content "tags") to advertisers.
- DoubleVerify’s reports labeled some FilmOn domains with tags such as "Adult Content" and "Copyright Infringement," and provided these confidential reports to its clients.
- FilmOn sued for trade libel, tortious interference, and unfair competition, alleging the reports caused advertisers to avoid FilmOn and harmed its business.
- DoubleVerify moved to strike under California’s anti‑SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16); the trial court granted the motion and the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding context irrelevant under subdivision (e)(4).
- The California Supreme Court granted review to decide whether and how the commercial/contextual nature of speech bears on whether it is "in furtherance of" free speech "in connection with" a public issue under § 425.16(e)(4).
- The Court held that context (speaker, audience, purpose) is relevant to the catchall provision; DoubleVerify’s confidential, for‑profit reports were too remotely connected to public debate to receive anti‑SLAPP protection, so the Court of Appeal’s judgment was reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 425.16(e)(4) protects DoubleVerify’s confidential, paid reports | FilmOn: reports are about issues of public interest (adult content, copyright) so are protected regardless of audience | DoubleVerify: content alone matters; commercial/confidential context irrelevant to (e)(4) protection | Context matters; statements must both implicate a public issue and functionally contribute to public debate; DoubleVerify’s reports did not and are not protected |
| Whether commercial nature or confidentiality of speech categorically excludes anti‑SLAPP protection | FilmOn: commercial/confidential character shows no entitlement to protection here | DoubleVerify: commercial context is irrelevant except where § 425.17(c) applies | Commercial context is relevant but not dispositive; it can inform whether speech furthers public debate; no categorical exclusion |
| Whether § 425.17(c) exemption precludes considering commercial context under § 425.16 | FilmOn: § 425.17(c) applies only to a subset (comparative advertising); (e)(4) still permits context inquiry | DoubleVerify: treating context as relevant makes § 425.17(c) redundant | Considering commercial context under (e)(4) does not render § 425.17(c) redundant; the exemption is narrower and limited in scope |
| Proper test for § 425.16(e)(4) (what “in connection with” requires) | FilmOn: broad content-based test; if topic is of public interest, protection follows | DoubleVerify: content-based link to public issue suffices | Two‑part test: (1) identify the public issue implicated by content; (2) assess the functional relationship between the statement and public discourse (i.e., whether it contributes to public debate). Context informs step 2 |
Key Cases Cited
- Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity, 19 Cal.4th 1106 (California 1999) (contextual/official‑proceeding basis for anti‑SLAPP protection)
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (California 2002) (anti‑SLAPP can apply to private communications)
- Wilbanks v. Wolk, 121 Cal.App.4th 883 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (statement must contribute to public debate to be protected)
- Industrial Waste & Debris Box Service, Inc. v. Murphy, 4 Cal.App.5th 1135 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (commercial report qualified for (e)(4) where it illuminated public‑record issues and influenced public authorities)
- Simpson Strong‑Tie Co., Inc. v. Gore, 49 Cal.4th 12 (California 2010) (scope of § 425.17(c) and limits on exemption)
- Terry v. Davis Community Church, 131 Cal.App.4th 1534 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (private communications can concern public interest; context still relevant)