Money. Identity. Technology.
Follow the money. Find the decision.
Procedural ruling applying FilmOn to a payment-reporting dispute
This is the eGumball anti-SLAPP appeal decided on 23 April 2025 and modified on 6 May. It affirmed denial of Merrick's special motion to strike in litigation concerning confidential payment-risk reporting.
The court found this confidential commercial report outside the relevant public-interest provision while rejecting a categorical exclusion of all confidential commercial speech. Conversion was outside the motion, and liability, privilege and contract defences remained unresolved. The 6 May modification substitutes eGumball's assertion that processed 2020/2021 transactions were directly connected to written contracts. That assertion is not a judicially established fact; rehearing was denied without changing the judgment.
California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Three → eGumball G062863M anti-SLAPP appeal
2025-04-23 – 2025-04-23
Court found this confidential commercial report did not contribute to public discussion under425.16(e)(4), while rejecting a categorical exclusion of all confidential commercial speech. Conversion was outside the motion; liability and privilege/contract defenses remain unadjudicated.
California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Three → eGumball G062863M anti-SLAPP appeal
2025-05-06 – 2025-05-06
6May order substitutes eGumball's assertion that processed2020/2021 transactions were directly connected to written contracts; the contrary unmodified sentence is superseded. Rehearing denied, no judgment change; the assertion is not an adjudicated fact.
FilmOn S244157 public-interest anti-SLAPP decision → eGumball G062863M anti-SLAPP appeal
2025-04-23 – 2025-04-23
2025 eGumball opinion expressly applies FilmOn's audience/purpose/context analysis to confidential payment reporting. This is a judicial-precedent route, not shared ownership, classifier or database.
Merrick Bank Corporation → eGumball G062863M anti-SLAPP appeal
2025 appeal
Merrick appealed denial of its special motion to strike; the2025 decision addresses procedural protected activity, not final truth or contract defenses.
eGumball later disposition: a failed procedural shield, not delisting ↗
FilmOn classification litigation: a paid label, an attempted correction, and a procedural limit ↗
Merrick Bank Corporation → sought anti-SLAPP protection for MATCH report → eGumball G062863M anti-SLAPP appeal
2025 appeal
Merrick appealed denial of its special motion to strike; the2025 decision addresses procedural protected activity, not final truth or contract defenses.
California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Three → affirmed denial at protected-activity step → eGumball G062863M anti-SLAPP appeal
2025-04-23 – 2025-04-23
Court found this confidential commercial report did not contribute to public discussion under425.16(e)(4), while rejecting a categorical exclusion of all confidential commercial speech. Conversion was outside the motion; liability and privilege/contract defenses remain unadjudicated.
California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Three → modified inverted sentence without changing judgment → eGumball G062863M anti-SLAPP appeal
2025-05-06 – 2025-05-06
6May order substitutes eGumball's assertion that processed2020/2021 transactions were directly connected to written contracts; the contrary unmodified sentence is superseded. Rehearing denied, no judgment change; the assertion is not an adjudicated fact.
FilmOn S244157 public-interest anti-SLAPP decision → supplied expressly applied legal framework → eGumball G062863M anti-SLAPP appeal
2025-04-23 – 2025-04-23
2025 eGumball opinion expressly applies FilmOn's audience/purpose/context analysis to confidential payment reporting. This is a judicial-precedent route, not shared ownership, classifier or database.