Rezec

This is the most frivolous case with which I have ever had to deal. Imagine the great contribution this case will make to our quality of life and to justice in America. Why, it may eventually protect us all from war, pestilence, famine and death. A new day will dawn from which time no one will ever again be fooled by a promotion touting a movie as the greatest artistic accomplishment of the ages. From that day on, all persons will be able to absolutely rely on the truth and accuracy of movie ads. No longer will people be seen lurching like mindless zombies toward the movie theater, compelled by a puff piece. What a noble and overwhelming undertaking. The only losers will be those poor souls who do not go to the movies. But, such is life. Someone always gets left behind.

While the vast majority of actions taken by lawyers contribute to the public good, counsel here are providing nothing even approaching rectification of a legitimate wrong. I cannot see breathing life into this farce. We should be occupying ourselves with resolving legitimate disputes instead of laughable cases designed not to gain anything for the plaintiffs, but rather to generate fees for the only true…

In marketing its films, a motion picture studio advertised films by falsely portraying a person as a film critic for a newspaper and attributing to him laudatory reviews about the films. Certain film viewers filed this lawsuit under the California unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.), the false advertising law (id., § 17500 et seq.) and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq.) seeking injunctive relief, restitution and disgorgement.

The studio filed a special motion to strike the complaint, claiming it was a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP suit) (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16). The trial court denied the motion and the studio has appealed. We conclude that this is not a SLAPP suit because, although the films themselves enjoy full First Amendment protection, the film advertisements do not.

I

BACKGROUND

Defendant Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc. (Sony), released four motion pictures in 2000 and 2001 entitled Vertical Limit, The Animal, A Knight’s Tale, and Hollow Man. Without the knowledge of senior management, one of Sony’s employees, who created advertisements for these films, inserted quotations attributed…

In marketing its films, a motion picture studio advertised films by falsely portraying a person as a film critic for a newspaper and attributing to him laudatory reviews about the films. Certain film viewers filed this lawsuit under the California Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof.Code, § 17200 et seq.), the False Advertising Law ( id., § 17500 et seq.) and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civ.Code, § 1750 et seq.) seeking injunctive relief, restitution and disgorgement.

The studio filed a special motion to strike the complaint, claiming it was a SLAPP suit (Civ.Code, § 425.16). The trial court denied the motion and the studio has appealed. We conclude that this is not a SLAPP suit because, although the films themselves enjoy full First Amendment protection, the film advertisements do not.

Defendant Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc. (Sony), released four motion pictures in 2000 and 2001 entitled "Vertical Limit," "The Animal," "A Knight's Tale," and "Hollow Man." Without the knowledge of senior management, one of Sony's employees, who created advertisements for these films, inserted quotations attributed to David Manning, who, according to the ad, worked for the…