In a recent judgment, a Ninth Circuit panel rejected a Washington-based tech company’s defense under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, which it put forward to shield itself from proposed class claims. The tech company stands accused of illicitly profiting from the intellectual property and publicity rights of California residents.
Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) laws have been designed to prevent the abuse of litigation with the intent of silencing, intimidating, and burdening critics by making them bear the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.
In an interesting development during the case, two of the presiding judges called upon the full Ninth Circuit to reconsider the practice of permitting interlocutory appeals of anti-SLAPP decisions. These preliminary appeals play a significant role in the progression of lawsuits, as they determine whether a case will proceed to trial or not under the anti-SLAPP statute.
The calls for a rethink on this practice by the Ninth Circuit raise pertinent questions about the future of anti-SLAPP appeals and their impact on public participation and freedom of expression issues, particularly in the tech industry.
For details of the original judgment, please refer to this Law360 report.