Precedents Cited

The judgment heavily relied on precedents such as FilmOn.com Inc. v. DoubleVerify Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 133, which established a two-step test for determining whether conduct falls under the anti-SLAPP statute's protection. Other significant cases referenced include:

• Rivero v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 913
• WEINBERG v. FEISEL (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1122
• Bikkina v. Mahadevan (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 70
• MANN v. QUALITY OLD TIME SERVICE, INC. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 90
• World Financial Group, Inc. v. HBW Ins. & Financial Services, Inc. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1137

These cases collectively shaped the court's understanding of what constitutes a public issue versus a private dispute, thereby influencing the court's decision in this instance.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of context in evaluating whether a protest implicates public issues. Applying the two-step test from FilmOn:

• First Step: Determine whether the protest implicates a public issue or an issue of public interest. The court found that the demonstration against unfair foreclosure practices and residential displacement was indeed a matter of public concern.
• Second Step: Assess whether the activity contributes to public discussion on the implicated issue. The court concluded that the protest not only drew attention to Wedgewood's practices but also furthered the broader public discourse on housing instability and economic displacement.

The Court also addressed the role of context, arguing that the declarative statements from ACCE and the nature of the protest—organized by a community empowerment group and attracting media attention—indicated a clear connection to public issues. Justice Baker's dissent, however, argued that the protest was primarily a personal dispute masquerading as a public issue, aligning with traditional definitions of a SLAPP suit.

Impact

This judgment significantly broadens the scope of anti-SLAPP protections, particularly in the realm of real estate disputes and housing protests. By affirming that protests against unfair foreclosure practices and displacement can constitute protected activity, the decision:

• Empowers advocacy groups and individuals to publicly challenge unethical business practices without fear of retaliatory litigation.
• Encourages more vigorous public discourse on critical social issues by providing legal safeguards against SLAPP suits.
• Clarifies the application of the two-step test, emphasizing the necessity of contextual analysis in determining the public nature of a protest.

Future cases involving protests and public interest litigation, especially those related to housing, urban development, and economic policies, will likely reference this decision to assert anti-SLAPP protections.

Anti-SLAPP Statute

The anti-SLAPP statute is designed to prevent plaintiffs from using courts to intimidate or silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a lawsuit. SLAPPs are lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of constitutional rights, such as free speech and petition for redress of grievances.

Two-Step Test from FilmOn

• First Step: Identify if the defendant's activity implicates a "public issue" or "issue of public interest."
• Second Step: Determine whether the activity contributes to public discussion on the identified issue.

This test helps courts decide if anti-SLAPP protections apply, ensuring that only lawsuits aimed at suppressing legitimate public discourse are dismissed under the statute.

Public Issue vs. Private Dispute

A public issue involves matters that affect a significant portion of the community or society at large, such as housing policies, environmental regulations, or civil rights. In contrast, a private dispute pertains to personal disagreements between individuals or entities without broader societal implications.