Latest news with #Anti-SLAPP
Yahoo
06-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
YouTuber Ethan Klein Loses Anti-SLAPP Appeal in Producer Ryan Kavanaugh Defamation Case
YouTuber Ethan Klein lost a motion to dismiss the defamation case brought against him by producer Ryan Kavanaugh after the California Court of Appeal upheld a prior ruling on Thursday. Klein — who is famous for his H3H3 podcast and Internet troll persona — filed an anti-SLAPP motion to try to get the former Relativity Media CEO and film financier's initial complaint stricken, claiming his comments fall under free speech after Kavanaugh accused the influencer of defamation. 'Ryan Kavanaugh brought an action against Ethan Klein and Ted Entertainment, Inc. (TEI) for defamation and defamation by implication alleging they falsely accused him of running a Ponzi scheme,' the court explained in summary in documents obtained by TheWrap. 'The trial court denied defendants' anti-SLAPP motion to strike Kavanaugh's complaint. We affirm.' According to the filings, the case started when Variety published a June 2019 article entitled, 'Ryan Kavanaugh Accused by Ex-Partner of Running a Ponzi Scheme.' In it, the trade wrote that 'Elon Spar filed a lawsuit against Kavanaugh in Los Angeles Superior Court on June 6, 2019, alleging Kavanaugh persuadedhim to go into business with Kavanaugh under false pretenses. Spar had developed an idea for a stock exchange in which buyers could purchase equity in film projects.' However, the outlet later updated its coverage to include a statement from Kavanaugh's team that he and Spar had 'satisfactorily resolved all of their issues.' Then in April 2021, Triller Fight Club II sued Klein and his podcast company for copyright infringement after they used footage of their pay-per-view fight and music event without permission. At the time, Klein alleged that Kavanaugh was behind the lawsuit despite not being directly involved (the former Relativity Media producer was also the founder of Proxima Media, which had a controlling stake in Triller from 2019-2022). 'Kavanaugh's complaint alleges that beginning on June 11, 2021, Klein launched a campaign to harass and defame him in retaliation for Triller Fight Club II's copyright action,' the court docs detailed. 'Klein used his YouTube channels and other social media platforms to disseminate the defamatory accusation in the Variety article that Kavanaugh ran a Ponzi scheme. Within hours of its publication in Variety, that accusation had been retracted and the article had been corrected. Klein knew of the retraction and correction but repeatedly republished the false accusation over the following months.' Ultimately, Kavanaugh's lawyer Amy McCann Roller issued the following statement: 'This is an important case about the growth of online and professional trolling, which required a real analysis of when free speech is no longer a harmless opinion.' According to the court, Kavanaugh will now be allowed to pursue damages. The post YouTuber Ethan Klein Loses Anti-SLAPP Appeal in Producer Ryan Kavanaugh Defamation Case appeared first on TheWrap.
Fox News
04-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Fox News
Justin Baldoni slams Ryan Reynolds as Blake Lively's ‘co-conspirator,' rips actor's request to dismiss lawsuit
Justin Baldoni referred to Ryan Reynolds as Blake Lively's "co-conspirator" in a Tuesday filing that asked a judge to deny the "Deadpool" actor's motion to be dismissed from Baldoni's $400 million defamation lawsuit. "Reynolds pretends" that Baldoni's and the Wayfarer Studios legal team's "First Amended Complaint (the 'FAC') fails to set forth any basis for his liability and that he merely acted as a supportive spouse," Baldoni's lawyers wrote in the filing obtained by Fox News Digital. "Not so. The FAC specifically alleges ample facts to support the Wayfarer Parties claims against him, based on both his direct actions and his liability as a co-conspirator." It went on to say "even in the extremely unlikely event that the Court determines" dismissing Reynolds from the lawsuit is "appropriate, Reynolds is unable to recover his attorneys' fees," saying that Anti-SLAPP laws that protect people from meritless lawsuits don't apply in this case. The filing added, "In short, the Motion should be denied." Fox News Digital reached out to reps for Reynolds and Lively for comment. Baldoni's defamation suit against Lively accuses Reynolds of "defamation, false light invasion of privacy, tortious interference, and civil extortion." False light is an invasion of privacy that portrays someone in an unfair light. Reynolds' team has filed a motion to have the actor removed from the suit. A spokesperson for Reynolds told People magazine on Thursday, "The main takeaway from the Wayfarer Parties' opposition to Ryan's motion to dismiss their case is that they finally realize the plain defects in their complaint." "They once again claim defamation without alleging who was defamed, what specifically was said, or how anyone suffered actual harm," the spokesperson continued. "Unlike Mr. Baldoni, who built his brand pretending to be a man who is 'confident enough to listen' to the women in his life, Ryan Reynolds actually is that man, and he will continue to support his wife as she stands up to the individuals who not only harassed her but then have retaliated against her." The spokesperson added, "Under New York law, California law, and indeed in every jurisdiction of the United States this lawsuit not only fails but may result in the Wayfarer Parties covering Ryan's costs and attorneys' fees for bringing such a frivolous case in the first place." Baldoni's Tuesday filing said that Reynolds' claim that his suit "fails to identify defamatory statements he made fails on its face." "The FAC alleges that, at least twice, Reynolds stated to WME executives—Baldoni's and Wayfarer's talent agency—that Baldoni is a sexual predator and that, by implication, WME was in business with a sexual predator," the filing said, adding, "These allegations are more than sufficiently specific, identifying the speaker, the listeners, and why, where and when the statements were made." Baldoni's team in their Tuesday filing also used a quote Reynolds jokingly made last summer while doing press for "Deadpool & Wolverine," in which he said, "I've realized that I'm too big to fail at this point, so I just crush my enemies and drink their blood." After filing the motion to dismiss last month, Reynolds' lawyers said that Baldoni's entire case against Reynolds "appears to be based on Mr. Reynolds allegedly privately calling Mr. Baldoni a 'predator,' but here's the problem — that is not defamation unless they can show that Mr. Reynolds did not believe that statement to be true. The complaint doesn't allege that. In fact, it suggests the opposite: that Mr. Reynolds genuinely believes Mr. Baldoni is a predator," People magazine reported. Lively sued Baldoni last December for sexual harassment, retaliation, intentional affliction of emotional distress, negligence and more related to their movie "It Ends With Us," which came out last summer. The same day Lively filed her federal suit, Baldoni filed a $250 million suit against the New York Times for a December article about the alleged smear campaign he attempted to run against his co-star. Weeks later, Baldoni then named Lively and Reynolds in a separate $400 million defamation lawsuit in which he accused the Hollywood power couple of attempting to hijack "It Ends With Us" and create their own narrative. In Baldoni's suit, he claimed Lively took over the edit, and he was essentially locked out of the film. From there, she allegedly threatened not to attend the premiere. In addition to releasing a website detailing the timeline of events that allegedly occurred, Baldoni's team also shared unedited footage from the set of "It Ends With Us." Both Lively and Baldoni have claimed the footage bolsters their respective claims. Lively has also filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
Forbes
27-03-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
Free Speech Rights: Anti-SLAPP Laws Of The U.S. Ranked By Quality
Anti-SLAPP laws suppress the censorship of free expression through lawfare. Anti-SLAPP laws are statutes that provide a substantive right of a person to an early dismissal of causes of action brought against them with the effect of silencing or punishing their First Amendment (and corresponding state constitutional) rights to freedom of speech and to petition. The idea ― which has been proven to be very successful ― is to prevent a plaintiff from using the heavy monetary and emotional expense of litigation to grind down a defendant, even if the plaintiff's lawsuit is ultimately shown to be meritless. Anti-SLAPP laws accomplish this by, basically, moving the summary judgment motion from the end of a case to the start of the case and imposing a stay of the litigation until the Anti-SLAPP motion is resolved by the court. Which U.S. jurisdiction has the best Anti-SLAPP laws? This article rates the Anti-SLAPP laws of the U.S. states and territories. There were many factors considered, but the primary considerations went to scope (breadth of protection), the availability of an automatic stay of the litigation or at least of discovery, the availability of a mandatory appeal of right to an unsuccessful movant, the awarding of attorneys fees and costs, and whether the statute contains a uniformity of interpretation provision to deter forum shopping. An ancillary purpose of this article is to let state legislatures know where their Anti-SLAPP statutes are deficient (or that they do not have one at all) so that these problems may be remedied. Because the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act ("UPEPA") uniquely satisfies all of the requirements, the states that have adopted the UPEPA are automatically granted an "A" rating. The states that have very good organic Anti-SLAPP laws, but do not have the benefit of the UPEPA's uniformity provision fall into the "B" category. States with workable but flawed Anti-SLAPP statutes get a "C" while the states with mostly useless statutes get a "D". The states with no Anti-SLAPP law at all of course merit an "F". So here we go: Quality Anti-SLAPP statute, including provision for uniformity of interpretation to prevent forum-shopping and enhance quality of court opinions. Quality Anti-SLAPP statute, but without provision for uniformity of interpretation. Average Anti-SLAPP statute, but restricted in scope and/or lacking important protective provisions. Poor Anti-SLAPP statute, significantly restricted in scope and without most important protective provisions. No Anti-SLAPP statute. The legislatures of these states (and Puerto Rico) are asleep at the switch. Well, that's it. As Anti-SLAPP laws do not change very often, I doubt that this will be anything like an annual list. Still, it may be interesting to look back in several years to see where these gaps in Anti-SLAPP law have finally been filled. Or not.
Yahoo
18-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
House Judiciary committee to take up plan protecting against lawsuits intended to stifle speech
Rep. Kara Hope (D-Holt) speaks on the House floor on June 21, 2023. (Photo: Anna Liz Nichols) On Wednesday, members of the House Judiciary Committee will take testimony on a resurrected plan to defend Michiganders from lawsuits aimed at silencing individuals who speak out on issues of public concern. Rep. Kara Hope (D-Holt) in January reintroduced her plan to allow Michigan courts to immediately dismiss strategic litigation against public participants, also known as a SLAPP suit. In a news release, Hope's office notes these cases are often brought by wealthy plaintiffs against participants with fewer resources in hopes of intimidating or silencing the defendant. 'Representative Hope's bill gives Michiganders the ability to speak out on issues of public concern without fear of being sued,' Kaitlin Wolff, legislative program director at the Uniform Law Commission, said in a statement. 'A SLAPP suit is filed to bury its target in costly litigation and stifle speech, not to win. Thirty-five states have a law in place to address these frivolous suits, but Michigan does not,' Wolff said. Hope called these types of cases an insult to First Amendment freedoms of expression, speech and association. 'This legislation will end this abuse of our legal system and ensure Michiganders the right to free speech without the fear of being sued and having to pay tens of thousands of dollars to defend themselves,' Hope said. Hope's House Bill 4045 also includes protections from survivors of domestic and sexual violence and human trafficking. 'Anti-SLAPP laws are vital for empowering survivors of domestic violence, sexual violence and human trafficking,' said Heath Lowry, staff attorney and policy specialist at the Michigan Coalition to End Domestic and Sexual Violence. 'These laws offer crucial protection against lawsuits meant to silence and intimidate survivors, stripping perpetrators of yet another dangerous weapon.' Hope's previous effort, House Bill 5788 passed the House in a 100-8 vote, but died in the Senate at the end of the Legislative term last year. The House Judiciary will hold a hearing for the bill at 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
21-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita seeks dismissal of latest disciplinary commission charges
Attorney General Todd Rokita filed a motion to dismiss a new complaint filed against him by the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission. (Nathan Gotsch/Fort Wayne Politics) Attorney General Todd Rokita is seeking to dismiss a new complaint filed against him by the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission, calling it an 'impermissible attempt to restrain an elected official and candidate's political speech.' The 26-page document filed Thursday argued Rokita did not contradict an earlier disciplinary agreement or sworn affidavit. Rather, the Republican attorney general maintained the disciplinary commission's latest complaint violated Indiana law, specifically the 'constitutional separation of powers principles.' Rokita's motion also contends that the charges violate his First Amendment right to free speech and Indiana's Anti-SLAPP statute intended to protect speech against legal challenges. Story continues below. Motion to Dismiss (2) In a sworn affidavit, Rokita accepted responsibility for misconduct in exchange for a public reprimand last year. In its new complaint filed in late January, the commission found that Rokita almost immediately released a statement contradicting his admission. Adrienne Meiring, executive director of the disciplinary commission, wrote in the complaint that 'this retraction of acceptance of responsibility demonstrates that the respondent was not candid with the court when he attested that he admitted he had violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules.' Rokita countered in his motion to dismiss that he 'should be permitted to speak freely to his constituents without the constant threat of an unelected commission parsing his every word, ready to pounce with a disciplinary action when they perceive any imagined inconsistency.' 'Given the serious constitutional, statutory and factual problems with its case,' he continued, the 'right thing' for the commission to do is 'withdraw its complaint.' Rokita held, too, that the commission's action 'poses a significant risk' to his 'credibility with the bar and the public.' Central to the disciplinary commission's complaint is Rokita's sworn conditional agreement regarding his discipline, and a subsequent press release issued by the attorney general. In a 2022 interview with Fox News commentator Jesse Watters, Rokita called Bernard an 'activist acting as a doctor' and said his office would be investigating her conduct. That November, a split-decision and public reprimand from state Supreme Court justices found that he had violated two of the Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers: They said Rokita's comments constituted an 'extrajudicial statement' that he knew — or reasonably should have known — would be publicly disseminated and would prejudice related legal proceedings. They also said his statements had 'no substantial purpose' other than to embarrass or burden Dr. Caitlin Bernard. Rokita and the commission agreed to the discipline in the conditional agreement. In a sworn affidavit, Rokita admitted to the two violations and acknowledged he couldn't have defended himself successfully on the charges if the matter were tried. The parties disputed over a third charge — engaging in conduct 'that is prejudicial to the administration of justice' — which the commission agreed to dismiss in exchange for 'admission to misconduct' on the others. Rokita's punishment included a public reprimand and $250 in court costs. But the same day the reprimand was handed down, Rokita shared a lengthy and unrepentant statement, defending his 'true' remarks in which he attacked the news media, medical field and 'cancel culture.' The disciplinary commission pointed to those remarks — as well as earlier drafts of the statement obtained by subpoena, and a recent quote provided to the Indiana Lawyer — as evidence of Rokita's 'lack of candor and dishonesty to the Court' after he agreed to accept responsibility for misconduct. But Rokita sees the situation differently. In his motion, he called the disciplinary commission's latest complaint 'unconstitutional harassment.' The document argues the disciplinary commission is 'thought-policing' the attorney general, and that Rokita is being retaliated against for 'daring to propose common-sense reforms to the disciplinary process.' Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita faces three new disciplinary charges He took particular issue with his press release issued after the original reprimand. Rokita pointed specifically to this statement made in that 2023 release: 'I deny and was not found to have violated anyone's confidentiality or any laws. I was not fined.' Parsing words, Rokita argued those statements are true because — although he was reprimanded for violating certain lawyer conduct rules — those rules are not statutory laws. 'The commission's decision to bring a disciplinary action based on differing colloquial and legal interpretations of a term in an attempt to fabricate misrepresentation where none exists is wrong and, frankly, shocking,' Rokita said in his motion. The attorney general additionally pushed back against the commission's reference to the statement he gave to The Indiana Lawyer: 'One thing that is clear is that the AG did nothing dishonest, illegal or even wrong, and he will continue to fight for the people of this state no matter how much the left hates it,' Rokita said in a written statement to publication. The commission used the remarks as further evidence of Rokita's failure to accept responsibility for actions that led to his prior discipline. But Rokita argued that the article's context shows his quote 'was plainly' referring to at least three conduct complaints filed against him by 'Democratic activists' after his reprimand and not to the reprimand itself. The commission's decision to bring a disciplinary action based on differing colloquial and legal interpretations of a term in an attempt to fabricate misrepresentation where none exists is wrong and, frankly, shocking. – Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita 'The Commission rips this quote out of context to create a false narrative that Respondent was dishonest,' Rokita wrote in his motion to dismiss. 'As the full context shows, Respondent's quote was responding to the recent wave of politically motivated disciplinary complaints and the ensuing investigations the Commission started as a result of those politically motivated grievances filed and intentionally made public during Respondent's re-election campaign by self-described liberal activist attorneys.' Rokita also accused the commission of retaliating against him for his proposals to change Indiana's disciplinary rules for lawyers to more clearly allow for political speech. A decision on the dismissal motion and the disciplinary commission's new complaint is up to the Indiana Supreme Court. If the charges aren't dismissed — or if the disciplinary commission and Rokita can't reach a settlement agreement — the state's high court justices will appoint a hearing officer to hold a public hearing on the case and hear evidence. It would be up to the hearing officer to then issue findings and recommendations to the court, which has final say over the outcome of the case. Sanctions depend on the seriousness of the case. Possible sanctions include: a private or public reprimand; suspension from practice for a set period of time; suspension from practice with reinstatement only after the lawyer proves fitness; and permanent disbarment. The vast majority of grievances filed with the commission are dismissed, however. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
