In 2000, Pennsylvania passed limited anti-SLAPP legislation that applies only to environmental law and regulatory processes.

Read more here about this developing story here: http://www.senatorfarnese.com/state-senator-larry-farnese-to-introduce-legislation-to-protect-groups-from-frivolous-lawsuits

“7. Anti-SLAPP laws are here to help. Some would-be bloggers are concerned that the subjects they choose to write about may expose them to defamation lawsuits from thin-skinned public officials, businesses or organization leaders. While there’s no question that the threat of SLAPP, or strategic lawsuits against public participation, suits, or suits designed to bully the target into keeping his or her mouth shut are a barrier to full and effective exercise of First Amendment rights, a growing number of jurisdictions are enacting anti-SLAPP laws. The best of these laws, including those found in California, Washington, Texas and Washington, D.C., allow the defendant targeted by a SLAPP to bring an immediate motion to strike the complaint. If the plaintiff can’t make a prima facie showing at that time, the complaint is dismissed and the defendant is awarded attorney fees (and in Washington, a mandatory $10,000 fine). Such laws provide a powerful disincentive to bring of meritless defamation cases.”

Read the full article here: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202599337962&Reaping_the_Benefits_of_Ethical_Blogging&slreturn=20130409135544

1. Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

Magic Laundry argued that its client list (that defendants used to send letters regarding working conditions) qualified as a trade secret under California law and that defendants acquired the list by improper means. However, defendants maintained that the list was not a trade secret because Magic Laundry’s market trucks deliver its goods publicly to the locations of its clients, rendering it public knowledge, and that the list was not subject to security or obtained by improper means. The court agreed with defendants and also noted that there was no admissible evidence that the disclosure harmed Magic Laundry in any way. The court held that Magic Laundry failed to show a prima facie case of misappropriation of trade secrets and struck that claim.

2. Interference with Contract

Magic Laundry claimed that the defendants intended to disrupt Magic Laundry’s contracts with third parties and that those disruptions made performance of contracts difficult. Defendants argued that the interference with contract claim was preempted by Sections 7 and 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which address employees’ rights to organize as well as permissible conduct by unions in their efforts to organize labor forces. The court held that the defendants’ conduct fell “squarely within the purview” of the NLRA and that Magic Laundry does not allege that defendants’ conduct “involved violence or threats of violence, or any other quality that would take their activity beyond the scope of federal labor regulations.” Because Magic Laundry could not show a probability of prevailing on this claim, it was struck.

3. Defamation

The court held that Magic Laundry failed to show a prima facie case of defamation, as they could not show actual malice. While the complaint alleged that defendants made a number of false statements, the court held that Magic Laundry did not provide any evidence to show that the statements at issue were knowingly false or made in reckless disregard for their falsity. In fact, the court noted that “Magic Laundry apparently concedes that it does not have evidence” to show that some of the statements were false. Therefore, the court struck the defamation claim.

4. Trespass

Defendants argued that Magic Laundry lacked sufficient facts to support its trespass claim and that, regardless, the conduct alleged is specifically exempted from trespass liability under California law. To protect and encourage labor activities, California law exempts those engaging in lawful union activity from its trespass statutes. See Banales v. Municipal Court, 132 Cal. App. 3d 67 (1982). The court agreed that defendants’ conduct was exempt and held that “speaking to employees, handing out coffee, and disseminating flyers appears to be lawful union activity, and Magic Laundry does not point to any evidence or authority to the contrary.” The court struck the trespass claim.

After dismissing all of Magic Laundry’s state law claims, the Court addressed Magic Laundry’s four federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) claims. At the hearing, Magic Laundry requested leave to amend the RICO allegations. In his order, Judge Fitzgerald held that “The Court is dubious that Magic Laundry can allege a proper RICO claim on such a basis, including sufficiently detailed allegations of fraud. Nonetheless, the Court grants Magic Laundry leave to amend its RICO claims, if that can be done consistent with Rule 11(b).” In a warning to Magic Laundry, the court concluded by noting “Perhaps there will be a Second Amendment Complaint but there will be no Third.”

So while it is good news that the defendants were able to get the state claims dismissed under California’s anti-SLAPP law, the bad news is that the federal claims were not dismissed under California’s anti-SLAPP law.  Globetrotter Software, Inc. v. Elan Computer Group, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 1999) 63 F.Supp.2d 1127, and later, Restaino v. Bah (In re Bah) (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2005) 321 B.R. 41, held that federal claims in federal courts are not subject to Claifornia’s anti-SLAPP law. This shows the need for federal anti-SLAPP legislation, as it exposes one of the biggest loopholes to the current state anti-SLAPP law framework. A plaintiff can avoid a strong state anti-SLAPP law like the one in California by simply filing a federal claim in federal court. Federal anti-SLAPP legislation would close this loophole and protect all Americans at the state and federal level.

Anti-SLAPP laws applicable to lawsuits brought to suppress socially beneficial speech.  Anti-SLAPP laws end those lawsuits quickly and put plaintiffs on the hook for the defendant’s attorneys’ fees.  California has a strong anti-SLAPP law, and it’s dramatically reshaped many litigation areas…

Sanctions for Bogus Claims.  Plaintiffs should internalize the costs of their bad choices.  For example, anti-SLAPP lawsuits make plaintiffs pay defendants for bring anti-social lawsuits.  This risk that the plaintiff will write a check to the defense–for a lawsuit initiated by the plaintiff–raises the strategic stakes for plaintiffs.  It also makes defendants financially whole.

Read the full article here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2013/04/10/want-to-end-the-litigation-epidemic-create-lawsuit-free-zones/

Donald Trump has voluntarily dismissed his $5 million lawsuit against Bill Maher for failing to live up to an “unconditional offer” made on NBC’s Tonight Show to donate $5 million to charity if Trump provided a copy of his birth certificate proving that he’s not “spawn of his mother having sex with orangutan.”

Read more here: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/donald-trump-withdraws-bill-maher-432675

“…Monster Beverage also claimed recently that the March issue of a newsletter sent to elementary school students and their parents contained defamatory statements that had “materially damaged Monster and its well-known brand.” It objected to several statements in the newsletter, Build Healthy Kids, including one that said children had died from energy drinks and should “never drink” them.

In a letter dated March 4, the company demanded that Deborah Kennedy, a nutritionist who publishes the newsletter, retract and correct the statements within five days or face a lawsuit.

Ms. Kennedy, who lives in Connecticut, said in an interview that she was stunned by the threat, in part because the newsletter never mentioned Monster Energy or any other product by name, but focused instead on the need for children to cut down on sugar-laden beverages.

In response, she called on one of Connecticut’s United States senators, Richard Blumenthal, who is a critic of the energy drink industry. Mr. Blumenthal’s office contacted Monster, which agreed to withhold legal action pending a meeting with Ms. Kennedy.

Ms. Kennedy, who holds a doctorate in nutrition, said she thought the audience for her newsletter, children from kindergarten through fifth grade, should not consume energy drinks. “They are going after me for reaching that segment, and it boggles my mind,” she said.

Mr. Sitrick, the Monster spokesman, said that the 7-year-old son of a Monster employee had received the newsletter at his school and was upset by it. The boy showed it to his father, who brought it to the attention of a company lawyer.

“No child, much less a 7-year-old, should be falsely informed that his or her father’s employer is a child killer, especially since there are no facts to support the allegation,” Mr. Sitrick said. He added that Ms. Kennedy had yet to meet with a lawyer for Monster.

Last week, Senator Blumenthal and two other Democratic lawmakers, Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois and Representative Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, sent a letter to Monster Beverage urging it to apologize for the tone of its letter to Ms. Kennedy and asking whether the company had threatened others with lawsuits.

Mr. Sitrick said the company was still reviewing the letter but continued to believe that Ms. Kennedy’s statements were defamatory.”

Read the full article from the New York Times here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/20/business/in-a-new-aisle-energy-drinks-sidestep-rules.html?pagewanted=all

The case at issue is the defamation suit filed in 2011 by former federal agriculture official Shirley Sherrod against now-deceased conservative newsman Andrew Breitbart. Lawyers for Breitbart filed a motion last year to have the case dismissed pursuant to the anti-SLAPP act, which allows defendants to kill a case before the costly discovery phase of litigation and potentially recover costs and attorney fees.

Read more from the Washington Post here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/mike-debonis/wp/2013/03/15/d-c-anti-slapp-law-goes-before-federal-appeals-judges/?wprss=rss_local

“In a victory for web transparency and the First Amendment, one year ago this month, Avvo prevailed in a false advertising and misrepresentation lawsuit that was filed by a sanctioned attorney,” said Josh King, vice president of business development and general counsel, Avvo, Inc. “We firmly believe that consumers have the right to free speech and the right to right to information about the professionals they are seeking to hire, and we will continue to support the efforts of the Public Participation Project.”

The Public Participation Project is working to support First Amendments rights through federal anti-SLAPP legislation, and through March 24^th, is seeking contributions to help in its  for federal anti-SLAPP laws. Avvo, as a supporter of this initiative, has donated to the campaign. More information can be found here: http://www.anti-slapp.org/

Read the full press release here: http://press.avvo.com/release/avvo-supports-efforts-of-public-participation-project/

The energy giant is part of a global strategy by corporations to stifle democracy. Clearly it hasn’t heard of the Streisand effect

Without public protest, democracy is dead. Every successful challenge to excessive power begins outside the political chamber. When protest stops, politics sclerotises: it becomes a conversation between different factions of the elite.

But protest is of no democratic value unless it is effective. It must disturb and challenge those at whom it is aimed. It must arouse and motivate those who watch. The climate change campaigners trying to prevent a new dash for gas wrote to their MPs, emailed the power companies, marched and lobbied. They were ignored. So last year 17 of them climbed the chimney of the West Burton power station and occupied it for a week. Theirs was a demonstration in two senses of the word: they presented an issue to the public that should be at the front of our minds. Prompted to act by altruism and empathy, one day they will be remembered as we remember suffragettes and anti-slavery campaigners.

Last week the operator of the power station – EDF, largely owned by the French government – announced that it is suing these people, and four others, for £5m. It must know that, if it wins, the protesters have no hope of paying. It must know that they would lose everything they own, now and for the rest of their lives. For these and other reasons, EDF’s action looks to me like a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation – a SLAPP around the ear of democracy.

SLAPPs are attempts to bully people into political submission through inordinate demands. Their purpose is to terrify and enmesh. Even if they stand no chance of success, they ensure that campaigners who might otherwise have been trying to protect the environment or to defend workers’ rights are instead snarled up in the courts. Often, whatever the merits of the case, people will agree to leave the company alone if it drops the suit.

Read the full article from the Guardian here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/25/edf-west-burton-streisand-effect?goback=.gde_1911771_member_217472976

“AAN members are probably familiar with the term “SLAPP” lawsuit, if for no other reason than the infamous lawsuit filed by Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder against one of our own, Washington City Paper. The term “SLAPP” stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. It’s a lawsuit filed simply for the purpose of shutting someone up. It’s seen most often nowadays in the consumer review context: someone posts a bad review to Yelp about a company and the company sues them for defamation even though there’s no real case, because the company knows the person will capitulate and remove the review.”

Read the full article here: http://www.altweeklies.com/aan/legal-corner-defending-free-speech-through-anti-slapp-laws/Article?oid=6931061