California Supreme Court Revives FilmOn's Defamation Case Against DoubleVerify
Online TV streaming service FilmOn will get a chance to argue to the California Supreme Court that it has a legitimate defamation case for being labeled a copyright infringer and provider of adult content.
November 17, 2017 at 05:02 PM
3 minute read
SAN FRANCISCO – Online TV streaming service FilmOn will get a chance to argue to the California Supreme Court that it has a legitimate defamation case for being labeled a copyright infringer and provider of adult content.
The state high court announced in an advisory Friday that it has granted review in FilmOn's lawsuit against DoubleVerify, a company that provides information about websites to potential advertisers. FilmOn alleged that companies pulled ad dollars from FilmOn's websites after DoubleVerify classified them as “Copyright Infringement-File Sharing” and “Adult Content.”
A Los Angeles appellate court earlier this year affirmed a ruling by a lower court judge dismissing the case under California's anti-SLAPP statute, finding that DoubleVerify's classifications were constitutionally protected free speech and concerned a matter of public interest. (SLAPP is an acronym for “strategic lawsuit against public participation.”)
The central question before the California Supreme Court is whether, in determining whether to dismiss a case under the anti-SLAPP statute, courts should take into account the “commercial nature” of the speech at issue—including the identity of the speaker and audience, and the intended purpose of the speech. The court officially granted review Nov. 15.
FilmOn, formerly known as Aereokiller, has been involved in copyright litigation around the country with TV networks over whether it is entitled to rebroadcast over-the-air content at discounted rates as a “cable system.” It has generally been on the losing end of those legal battles, and has been blocked from offering broadcaster content while the court proceedings are ongoing.
In its complaint against DoubleVerify, FilmOn cited the unsettled nature of the copyright law issues in challenging how its websites were categorized. FilmOn conceded that some of its programming could be characterized as “R- rated,” but alleged that “the vast majority of the programming available on FilmOn does not fit within any definition of adult content.”
Lincoln Bandlow, a partner at Fox Rothschild who represents DoubleVerify, said in an email that he and the company welcome the opportunity for the state high court to affirm the previous rulings that DoubleVerify's speech “is speech about matters of significant public interest.”
FilmOn is represented by Ryan Baker of Baker Marquart. Baker said in an email that his client “is pleased the Supreme Court will consider this important precedent, which extends anti-SLAPP protections far beyond those intended by the California Legislature.” In its petition for review, FilmOn argued the lower courts had “dramatically expanded the scope” of the anti-SLAPP statute.
The case is FilmOn.com v. DoubleVerify, S244157.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNew Class Action Points to Fears Over Privacy, Abortions and Fertility
Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
5 minute readCourt rejects request to sideline San Jose State volleyball player on grounds she’s transgender
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250