Woodhill Ventures, LLC v. Yang
68 Cal.App.5th 624
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Nicolette Yang ordered a science‑themed birthday cake from Big Sugar Bakeshop; the invoice listed a decoration described as “Pills.”
- The delivered cake included realistic‑looking fondant pills; the Yangs objected that the decorations resembled real prescription drugs on a 7‑year‑old’s cake.
- Ben Yang called the bakery, then posted angrily about the cake to his ~1.5 million social‑media followers and discussed the incident on his podcast; followers then sent threats and negative messages to Big Sugar.
- Big Sugar demanded retractions/corrections; Yang refused. Big Sugar sued for libel, slander, and UCL violations. Yang filed an anti‑SLAPP (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16) special motion to strike.
- The trial court denied Yang’s anti‑SLAPP motion, finding the statements were not on a matter of public interest (and alternatively that Big Sugar showed a probability of prevailing). The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding Yang’s statements did not involve the public interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Yang’s posts/podcast qualify as protected activity under CCP §425.16(e)(3) because they concern an issue of public interest | Big Sugar: statements concern a private dispute about one cake and are not protected | Yang: posts addressed public‑interest topics (candy confusion/child safety), involved public figures/large audience, and provided consumer information | Held: Not public interest — posts were a private grievance aimed at rallying followers, not a public discussion |
| Whether a generalized public‑safety theme ("candy confusion") transforms the posts into public‑interest speech | Big Sugar: the posts did not discuss broader safety or educate the public—only complained about one order | Yang: linked the cake to documented public health concerns about children ingesting medications | Held: Tangential link insufficient; statements lacked the required closeness to a public debate |
| Whether celebrity status or wide dissemination makes statements public interest | Big Sugar: fame/large audience alone does not convert a private dispute into public discourse | Yang: his celebrity and Big Sugar’s publicity make the incident matter to the public | Held: Celebrity or reach alone does not render content a matter of public interest |
| Whether the statements constitute consumer‑protection speech (i.e., informing consumers beyond a single transaction) | Big Sugar: single complaint about one cake does not supply broader consumer information | Yang: his posts served as consumer warning about a bakery practice and risk to children | Held: Not consumer‑protection speech — did not extend beyond one transaction or contribute to broader consumer debate |
Key Cases Cited
- Rand Resources, LLC v. City of Carson, 6 Cal.5th 610 (2019) (articulates three categories for public‑interest anti‑SLAPP protection)
- Wilson v. Cable News Network, Inc., 7 Cal.5th 871 (2019) (describes the two‑step anti‑SLAPP framework)
- FilmOn.com Inc. v. DoubleVerify Inc., 7 Cal.5th 133 (2019) (requires a close connection between the challenged statements and the asserted public interest)
- Weinberg v. Feisel, 110 Cal.App.4th 1122 (2003) (statements made to "gather ammunition" in a private dispute are not public‑interest speech)
- Wilbanks v. Wolk, 121 Cal.App.4th 883 (2004) (consumer‑watchdog speech that provides broader information can be protected)
- Gilbert v. Sykes, 147 Cal.App.4th 13 (2007) (consumer‑oriented informational sites are protected when they advance broader consumer discussion)
- Bernstein v. LaBeouf, 43 Cal.App.5th 15 (2019) (celebrity status and wide publication do not automatically create a public‑interest protection)
- Wong v. Jing, 189 Cal.App.4th 1354 (2010) (consumer health/safety discussion qualifies when it extends beyond a single complaint)