Greater Los Angeles Agency on Deafness, Inc. v. Cable News Network, Inc.
742 F.3d 414
9th Cir.2014Background
- GLAAD sues CNN for Unruh Act and DPA violations alleging CNN’s CNN.com videos are not closed-captioned, denying access to hearing-impaired visitors.
- CNN removed the action to federal court; magistrate denied CNN’s anti-SLAPP motion, and CNN appeals.
- FCC online captioning rules (2012) limit captioning to full-length TV programs; private right of action under CVAA is not provided, FCC has exclusive jurisdiction over such complaints.
- The district court and this court engage in a two-step anti-SLAPP analysis: first, whether the action targets free speech/public-interest conduct; second, whether plaintiff can show probability of prevailing on merits.
- GLAAD’s Unruh Act claim hinges on intent to discriminate; DPA claims seek a California-wide captioning remedy for CNN.com; California Supreme Court certification is sought on the DPA interpretation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does California’s anti-SLAPP statute apply to CNN captioning dispute? | GLAAD contends CNN’s refusal to caption advances CNN’s news reporting and thus falls within anti-SLAPP. | CNN argues captioning demands are not within protected speech-related conduct or public-interest issues. | Yes; the action targets CNN’s method of delivering news and falls within anti-SLAPP scope. |
| Can GLAAD prevail on Unruh Act claims given intent standard? | GLAAD asserts intentional discrimination against deaf/hard-of-hearing individuals by CNN’s neutral policy. | CNN argues no willful, affirmative discrimination; policy applied equally to all viewers. | GLAAD fails to show intentional discrimination; Unruh Act claims lack merit. |
| Do federal captioning regimes preempt or conflict with California’s DPA claims? | DPA claims supplement federal regime and are not precluded by preemption. | CVAA/FCC rules preempt state law where applicable. | DPA claims have minimal merit to withstand preemption challenges; field and conflict preemption not shown at this stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Gangland Productions, Inc., 730 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2013) (Broadcasting acts can be in furtherance of free-speech rights; anti-SLAPP threshold met)
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (Cal. 2002) (two-step anti-SLAPP inquiry; threshold and probability of prevailing)
- City of Cotati v. Cashman, 29 Cal.4th 69 (Cal. 2002) (principle of broad construction of anti-SLAPP statute)
- Koebke v. Bernardo Heights Country Club, 115 P.3d 1212 (Cal. 2005) (Unruh Act requires willful, affirmative misconduct for discrimination)
- Madsen v. Women’s Health Ctr., Inc., 512 U.S. 753 (Supreme Court 1994) (prior restraint doctrine and balancing test for speech restrictions)