Court defining the public-interest test for commercial classification disputes

Supreme Court of California

The Supreme Court of California issued the 6 May 2019 FilmOn.com v. DoubleVerify opinion concerning whether confidential commercial website reports qualified for an anti-SLAPP procedural shield under the public-interest provision.

What the decision did

The court reversed the prior appellate judgment while rejecting FilmOn's proposed categorical distinction between commercial and noncommercial speech. Media-industry amici had requested protection for DoubleVerify and described an anti-piracy advertising mechanism. The ruling ordered no reclassification, damages, advertising purchase or restoration of revenue. Its procedural analysis leaves the truth and consequences of the challenged labels to other stages of the case.

What the records show

Supreme Court of CaliforniaFilmOn S244157 public-interest anti-SLAPP decision

reversed protection for these confidential reports

2019-05-06 – 2019-05-06

6May2019 Court reversed the prior appellate judgment under public-interest catchall, while rejecting FilmOn's categorical commercial/noncommercial approach. It ordered no reclassification, damages, ad purchase or restoration.

2018 media amici brief supporting DoubleVerifySupreme Court of California

requested affirmance of DV procedural protection

2018-06-06 – 2018-06-06

Amici described an anti-piracy advertising mechanism and requested anti-SLAPP protection. Court did not grant that disposition; overlap with concern about categorical commercial-speech exclusion is not causal adoption proof.

Further reading

FilmOn classification litigation: a paid label, an attempted correction, and a procedural limit

Read the original sources 2

What the connections say

2 relationships
1

2018 media amici brief supporting DoubleVerifyrequested affirmance of DV procedural protectionSupreme Court of California

2018-06-06 – 2018-06-06

Amici described an anti-piracy advertising mechanism and requested anti-SLAPP protection. Court did not grant that disposition; overlap with concern about categorical commercial-speech exclusion is not causal adoption proof.

Read the original sources 2