Acquired and read 9 September 2026. Bounded lane closed after five focused discovery queries and full substantive judicial-text reading.
The source is CaseMine's republication of G062863M.
The complete substantive web-reader body, lines95-388, was read across two overlapping calls and retained in later-opinion.reader.txt, with no gaps in that interval. The derivative preserves the modification and unmodified body separately. No underlying declarations, contract, docket, judicial PDF or sealed exhibits were acquired. Hashes and exact search scope are in later-captures.json. Root independently retained/read its own complete reader copy.
The correction matters: May6 replaces the original page6 sentence with eGumball's assertion that all its processed 2020/2021 card transactions were directly connected to written client contracts (reader124-133, decisive127). The unmodified body at229 says the opposite. This remains eGumball's assertion, not an adjudicated reconciliation. Rehearing was denied, with no change in judgment.
Merrick Bank Corporation was the appellant. The court affirmed the denial of Merrick's special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute. The underlying action also named Paysafe Services (US), Corp. and Visa; those parties' ultimate liability was not adjudicated here. The earlier 2023 opinion used Paysafe Payment Processing Solutions, LLC: this packet does not silently merge those legal names.
The appeal applied de novo review. The two-step test first requires the defendant to establish claims arising from protected activity; only after that showing does the plaintiff need to demonstrate a probability of prevailing, described as minimal merit (printed p10; reader273-277). The actual affirmance rests on Merrick's failure to establish protected activity under the catchall public-interest provision425.16(e)(4). Conversion was outside the motion after Merrick conceded it did not arise from protected activity (fn3; reader243).
The court accepted a connection to the broad subject of credit-card security, but held that this specific confidential MATCH report did not contribute to public discussion. It considered the audience, purpose and context, not simply whether the topic affected many people (printed pp11-17; reader287-349). It expressly rejected a categorical rule excluding all confidential commercial speech from anti-SLAPP protection (reader347). Thus this is neither a ruling that private risk reports always lack protection nor a final determination that this report was false or unlawful.
Merrick had separately argued forum selection, eGumball's contractual consent, truth and common-interest privilege (printed pp7-8; reader241-249). The decision does not establish that those defenses fail on the merits. eGumball's allegations about account restrictions, withheld funds, a fine, declined test cards and lost processing access are presented as complaint allegations (printed pp5-7; reader220-238), not findings of damages, laundering innocence or payment restoration.
The court expressly applied FilmOn.com Inc. v. DoubleVerify Inc. (2019), involving confidential paid website reports tagged for adult content or copyright infringement. In this opinion, that earlier case supplies the legal comparison between commercial classification for advertisers and commercial risk reporting for acquirers (printed pp13-14; reader305-319). The comparison is significant for the investigation's structure: a privately distributed classifier does not obtain this procedural shield merely by invoking a public-interest subject. It establishes no common ownership, data feed or operational coordination between DoubleVerify and MATCH, and does not adjudicate the truth of FilmOn's challenged classifications. The named precedent remains an unacquired next-question candidate; no separate FilmOn inquiry was opened.
The court also described Merrick's typical merchant waiver/hold-harmless clause as a contractual means of preempting MATCH claims (printed p17; reader349-351). Its statement that Merrick had failed to secure such a release from eGumball is explicitly attributed to eGumball. This is evidence of a described contractual protection mechanism and disputed assent in this case, not a holding of universal enforceability or an acquired executed agreement.
The opinion's MATCH access, confidentiality, quarterly and per-inquiry fee descriptions belong to this historical litigation record. Footnote2 expressly uses the Mastercard Rules dated 9 February 2021, which Merrick cited; no amounts are given (printed pp3-5; reader195-215). These passages must not replace the independently acquired August2026 public rules or imply that this case established current prices.
The court granted Merrick's appellate sealing motion without prejudice on its asserted proprietary/business interests. It likewise partly granted eGumball's motion without prejudice, but refused sealing of 28 specified documents because they were not subject to a trial-court sealing motion and no overriding interest had been explained. A trial referee was still considering overlapping sealing questions. The appellate order expressly disclaimed guidance to that proceeding and allowed a later unsealing application if the referee or trial court denied sealing (printed pp18-20; reader360-378).
The disposition required eGumball, within ten days of issuance of the opinion, to file an updated public redacted brief removing redactions that discussed or cited the 28 documents. Footnote5 identifies Meehan preliminary-injunction declaration exhibits1,3,4,16,17,21,23,24,25,26,29,30,47,48,49,51,52,54,55,56,57,58,61,63,64,65,66, plus exhibit11 to his declaration opposing the anti-SLAPP motion and supporting the preliminary injunction. This is an ordered public-access change, not evidence the revised filing was actually made or of what those exhibits contain. The parties bore their own appeal costs.
Two focused follow-up searches for this docket/brief and eGumball/Meehan/May2025 returned opinion republications and counsel publicity, but no revised brief or these exhibits. No account, docket challenge, sealed-document recovery or contact route was used. The precise frontier is the filed updated redacted brief and its filing date, followed by any public trial-court sealing/removal or final merits disposition. The present packet does not establish that such later records are absent.
The earlier G060853 opinion reversed emergency TRO relief; the 2025 appeal affirmed denial of a different anti-SLAPP motion. Those outcomes answer different procedural questions. Neither acquired opinion establishes a final merits judgment, a completed MATCH correction/removal, or restored card processing.
The useful new fact is that Merrick actually sought and failed to obtain this procedural protection for the listing, while the court preserved separate contract questions and ordered a narrower public record. The next records would distinguish a surviving claim from an exercised substantive remedy. No canonical case, existing evidence packet, reader or ZIP was changed.