Serova v. Sony Music Entm't, 26 Cal. App. 5th 759

Background

Serova filed a putative class action alleging Sony, the Estate, and MJJ marketed the posthumous Michael Jackson album "Michael" with statements (album cover and promotional video) representing Jackson as lead singer on 10 vocal tracks, though three tracks were disputed.
She asserted UCL and CLRA claims against Appellants and a fraud claim against the Cascio defendants (who allegedly created the disputed tracks and knew Jackson did not sing them).
Prior to release, family members and others publicly questioned the authenticity of the three Disputed Tracks; Sony and the Estate issued public statements (including a detailed Weitzman statement) defending that Jackson was the vocalist.
Appellants moved to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute; the trial court granted in part but denied as to the Album Cover and Promotional Video, treating those as commercial speech subject to UCL/CLRA.
On appeal, the court held the Album Cover and Promotional Video statements were noncommercial, constitutionally protected speech (because they addressed a public controversy about the artist’s identity and Appellants lacked personal knowledge), and therefore the consumer-protection claims against Appellants were stricken.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do the challenged statements arise from protected speech on a public issue (anti-SLAPP prong 1)?	Statements are routine marketing/promotion of a product, not public-issue speech.	Statements responded to public controversy about authenticity and were public statements; thus protected.	Held: Yes; the dispute over vocalist identity was a matter of public interest and the statements arose from protected speech.
Are the Album Cover and Promotional Video commercial speech subject to UCL/CLRA?	Yes; they are promotional materials aimed at consumers and therefore commercial.	No; though promotional, the statements addressed a public controversy about the artist and Appellants lacked personal knowledge, making them noncommercial.	Held: Noncommercial; the content and context (public controversy + no personal knowledge) place the statements outside commercial-speech regulation.
Does the legislative exclusion for promotion of musical works in §425.17(d)(2) automatically confer anti-SLAPP protection?	Not argued by Plaintiff as dispositive.	Appellants argued the statutory exclusion shows legislative intent to afford protection.	Held: No; §425.17(d)(2) merely removes the commercial-speech carve-out from that provision—it does not dispense with the §425.16 public‑interest requirement.
Must court decide whether the statements were likely to deceive a reasonable consumer?	Serova argued likely deceptive; relied on stipulation that Jackson did not sing tracks.	Appellants argued they lacked personal knowledge and statements were opinions/noncommercial.	Held: Court did not reach misleadingness because statements were noncommercial and outside UCL/CLRA scope, so plaintiff cannot satisfy prong two.

Key Cases Cited

Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (2016) (sets two‑step anti‑SLAPP framework)
Rusheen v. Cohen, 37 Cal.4th 1048 (2006) (anti‑SLAPP protected activity analysis)
Kasky v. Nike, Inc., 27 Cal.4th 939 (2002) (limited‑purpose test for commercial speech: speaker, audience, content)
Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods. Corp., 463 U.S. 60 (1983) (factors distinguishing commercial speech)
Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809 (1975) (advertising has some First Amendment protection)
Riley v. Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind, 487 U.S. 781 (1988) (when speech inextricably intertwined with protected expression)
Kronemyer v. Internet Movie Database Inc., 150 Cal.App.4th 941 (2007) (entertainment‑work creation/distribution is a public‑interest topic)
Rezec v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., 116 Cal.App.4th 135 (2004) (promotional speech for artistic works can be commercial)
Stewart v. Rolling Stone LLC, 181 Cal.App.4th 664 (2010) (celebrity accomplishments constitute public interest)