Consumers and the Citizen Participation Act
“The First Amendment presupposes that the freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty -- and thus a good unto itself -- but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole.” - Bose v. Consumers Union, 466 U.S. 485 (1984)
Consumer information is critical to health, safety and environmental well-being. The Internet has amplified consumer voices, and enabled consumers to make informed, smart decisions more easily than ever before.
But with the rise of the consumer information highway has come the rise of SLAPPs against consumers who speak out about the nature and quality of the goods, products and services they use.
SLAPPs harass and intimidate, and divert attention and resources from the underlying consumer issue. Such lawsuits turn the justice system into a weapon, and have a serious chilling effect on the free speech that is so vital to the public interest.
Only about half the states have adopted anti-SLAPP laws, and these laws vary in breadth and strength of protection. Moreover, there is no federal anti-SLAPP law. That is why the proposed Citizen Participation Act is needed – it protects petition and speech in connection with an issue of public interest no matter where a person speaks out, or where they are hauled into court.
SLAPPs Against Consumers
Sharper Image Corp. v. Consumers Union, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23204.
In 2004, Sharper Image sued Consumers Union for its poor review of a Sharper Image air cleaning system in Consumer Reports. CU successfully invoked the California anti-SLAPP law to dismiss the case. In dismissing the Sharper Image lawsuit, the court concluded that Sharper Image "ha[d] not shown that the test protocol used by Consumers Union was scientifically, or otherwise, invalid," and had not "demonstrated a reasonable probability that any of the challenged statements were false." The dismissal entitled CU to reimbursement for legal fees and costs, for which it collected $525,000 early in 2005.
Texas Beef Group v. Winfrey, 201 F.3d 680 (2000).
In perhaps the most well-known SLAPP, Oprah Winfrey was sued in 1996 by Texas cattle ranchers after a show called “Dangerous Food,” in which she invited experts on mad cow disease, and said she wouldn’t eat another hamburger. The ranchers alleged more than $12 million in damages. Texas does not have an anti-SLAPP law, so Winfrey fought the SLAPP in trial for six weeks before a jury found in her favor. On appeal in 2000, the U.S. Fifth Circuit affirmed the ruling.
Auvil v. CBS "60 Minutes," 67 F.3d 816 (1994).
In another famous SLAPP, in 1989, 60 Minutes broadcast a story about the harmful effects of a chemical called alar, used in apple growing. Apple farmers in Washington state sued 60 Minutes and its parent companies, alleging more than $100 million in damages. The suit was dismissed on summary judgment, which the U.S. Ninth Circuit upheld on appeal in 1994, because the apple growers could not show that the statements made by 60 Minutes were false.
The Citizen Participation Act protects against SLAPPs by:
1. Broadly defining protected speech to include information about goods, products and services in the marketplace;
2. Providing a procedure for quick dismissal, and prohibiting or limiting discovery;
3. Providing for attorney’s fees and costs for a defendant who successfully has the case dismissed – so a consumer or organization does not bear the costs of a retaliatory lawsuit.
Please note: Some of the information and commentary contained in this listing are based on court filings and other informational sources that may contain unproven allegations made by the parties. The truthfulness and accuracy of such information may be in dispute.