109 Cal.App.5th 635
Cal. Ct. App.2025Background
- Six4Three, LLC developed an app called “Pikinis” that allowed users to search for friends’ photos of people in bathing suits on Facebook, relying on Facebook’s previously generous access for developers to user data via the Graph API.
- Facebook later restricted developer access to certain user data, including full friends lists and friend photos, rendering Pikinis nonfunctional.
- Six4Three sued Facebook and individually named executives for breach of contract, unfair competition, fraud, and related claims, alleging a “bait-and-switch” whereby Facebook encouraged developer reliance and then abruptly cut off access.
- Facebook and individual defendants eventually filed anti-SLAPP motions to strike the complaint, which were granted by the trial court after a protracted procedural history, including multiple amended complaints and earlier appeals.
- Six4Three challenged the trial court’s decisions on several grounds, including (1) the consideration of Facebook’s untimely anti-SLAPP motion; (2) application of the commercial speech exception; (3) failure to find Six4Three likely to prevail; (4) denial of discovery; and (5) attorney fee awards for work allegedly beyond the anti-SLAPP motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Facebook’s Anti-SLAPP Motion | The motion was untimely and should not have been heard | The court had discretion to consider the untimely motion, especially after other rulings | Court did not abuse discretion; motion could be considered |
| Commercial Speech Exception to Anti-SLAPP | Commercial speech exception applied to Facebook’s acts | Exception does not apply; no actionable representation of fact, just future promises | Exception not proven; exception did not shield Six4Three |
| Probability of Prevailing—Section 230 Immunity | Claims not barred by CDA §230, especially contract | Most claims are publisher-based, barred by §230; only contract analyzed on merits | Section 230 barred all but contract claim; contract claim failed |
| Discovery Request During Anti-SLAPP Proceedings | Discovery necessary to oppose anti-SLAPP effectively | No good cause shown for additional discovery | No abuse of discretion in denying discovery |
| Attorney Fee Award Scope | Fees exceeded those tied to anti-SLAPP motions | Fees related to all anti-SLAPP activities, including appeals, were proper | Award was not abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Barrett v. Rosenthal, 40 Cal.4th 33 (Cal. 2006) (establishing broad immunity for Internet service providers under Section 230)
- Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc., 29 Cal.4th 53 (Cal. 2002) (articulating two-step anti-SLAPP analysis)
- Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. v. Gore, 49 Cal.4th 12 (Cal. 2010) (elaborating on commercial speech exception requirements in anti-SLAPP)
- Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 2 Cal.5th 1057 (Cal. 2017) (discussing when claims ‘arise from’ protected activity under anti-SLAPP)
- Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino, 35 Cal.4th 180 (Cal. 2005) (anti-SLAPP motion procedure analogous to summary judgment)