Hammons v. Society of Permanent Cosmetic Professionals
967 N.E.2d 405
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Plaintiffs Hammons and The American Institute of Intradermal Cosmetics sue the Society of Permanent Cosmetic Professionals and several individuals for defamation, tortious interference, consumer fraud, and deceptive trade practices based on a blog and conference statements.
- Defendants allegedly posted under the name Not Maggie on a blog hosted by a defendant, accusing plaintiffs of unsanitary training and bad pigments, later republished to clients.
- Plaintiffs contend the blog and conference statements harmed their reputations in the permanent makeup industry.
- Defendants move to dismiss under the Citizen Participation Act (anti-SLAPP) and other grounds; circuit court granted dismissal under the Act and awarded limited attorney fees to defendants.
- Plaintiffs seek reversal of the Act dismissal and attorney-fee order; defendants cross-appeal fees.
- The issue centers on whether the Act immunizes the alleged statements as actions in furtherance of government participation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Act immunize the blog/conference statements as actions in furtherance of government participation? | Act does not apply because statements were not about governmental matters or aimed at influencing government action. | Statements were in furtherance of public participation and consumer-protection objectives, thus immunized. | Act not applicable; statements not in furtherance of government action; reversal and remand. |
| What is the proper burden and scope for proving non-immunization under Sandholm after 2012 IL 111443? | Plaintiffs need not show government-action focus to defeat immunity; burden on movants improperly placed. | Movants must show acts were in furtherance of rights to petition/government; burden shifts to plaintiffs to prove non-immunity with clear and convincing evidence. | courts clarify burden framework; suit not immunized where acts were not aimed at procuring favorable government action. |
| Is the suit a meritless SLAPP aimed to chill citizen participation, warranting dismissal under the Act? | Case does not fit SLAPP characteristics; not a strategic lawsuit to suppress participation. | Action should be dismissed as a SLAPP under the Act because it targets alleged improper conduct and seeks to procure government action. | Not a SLAPP; the Act does not immunize defamation or intentional torts; dismissal reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wright Development Group, LLC v. Walsh, 238 Ill. 2d 620 (2010) (context of governmental-action timing limits protection under the Act)
- Shoreline Towers Condominium Ass’n v. Gassman, 404 Ill. App. 3d 1013 (2010) (discusses limits of activism under the Act in policy context)
- Sandholm v. Kuecker, 2012 IL 111443 (2012) (Act applies to meritless lawsuits; burden shifting and scope clarified)