The Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District, in San Diego, issued a new published decision today embracing a broad interpretation of the public interest requirement of California’s anti-SLAPP statute, as well as a strong protections for non-actionable opinions.
The case, Chaker v. Mateo, involved statements the defendant posted online at Ripoff Report and Topix about the plaintiff and his forensics business. The statements included: “You should be scared. This guy is a criminal and a deadbeat dad. As you can see, I am the child’s grandma so I know. If you should eve [sic] come across this person, be very careful. He may be taking steroids so who knows what could happen” and “I would be very careful dealing with this guy. He uses people, is into illegal activities, etc. I wouldn’t let him into my house if I wanted to keep my possessions or my sanity.”
The Court of Appeal held that they had “little difficulty” concluding the statements were of public interest and made in a public forum and noted that the statements fell within “the broad parameters of public interest within the meaning of 425.16,” because they involved consumer protection information. In deciding whether the comments were statements of fact or opinion, the Court held that they were “made on Internet Websites which plainly invited the sort of exaggerated and insulting criticisms of businesses and individuals which occurred here. The overall thrust of the comments attributed is that [plaintiff] is a dishonest and scary person. This overall appraisal of [plaintiff] is on its face nothing more than a negative, but nonactionable opinion.”
The Court did note that the only statement which might arguably fall outside the scope of non-actionable opinion or epithet is the statement that the plaintiff was a criminal. “However, that statement is true. As the trial court noted, the fact [plaintiff’s] conviction was later expunged did not prevent others from making true statements about his criminal history.”