Fame Does Not Guarantee First Amendment Protection

in Civil Litigation RRB Law Blog by Stephen Raucher

Even in today’s world of reality television, where people are famous for being famous, such fame does not create an issue of public interest entitled to special protection.  In the recently published decision of Albanese v. Menounos, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 626 (B240866) on August 7, 2013, the Court of Appeal affirmed a lower court’s ruling denying the dismissal of a defamation lawsuit.  The lawsuit was brought by Lindsay Albanese, a celebrity stylist and fashion consultant, against Maria Menounos, a television personality and special correspondent for Access Hollywood during the time of the controversy.  Albanese’s complaint alleges that Menounos accused Albanese of stealing Dolce & Gabbana products in front of peers, colleagues and prospective business clients during an event at the W Hotel in Hollywood.  Menounos sought to dismiss the case pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP statute, claiming that Albanese was a public figure.  Among the examples Menounos gave of Albanese’s fame was that Albanese appeared on the national television show Hair Battle Spectacular, that she worked with nationally known figures such as Paula Abdul and Lara Flynn Boyle, and that she dressed the female cast members of Glee and contestants on the Bachelor and Bachelorette television shows.  The Court held that even if Albanese was a well-known celebrity stylist, there was no evidence that she was involved in a public controversy or that she was so famous that her private dispute became a matter of public interest.

Under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16), a lawsuit may be subject to dismissal if the  underlying activity is based on “conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right . . . of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.”  The anti-SLAPP statute was enacted in an effort to encourage participation in matters of public significance and to prevent meritless litigation designed to chill the exercise of First Amendment rights.  Under this statute, an individual sued for making defamatory statements can move to strike the complaint and dismiss the case if it arises from the protected activity enumerated in the statute, including matters that are a public issue.  Because “public issue” is undefined in the statute, case law has developed analyzing this requirement.

In considering whether Menounos’ alleged statements were deserving of anti-SLAPP protection, the court analyzed several cases discussing the public issue requirement.  In Hall v. Time Warner, Inc., 153 Cal. App. 4th 1337 (2007), the Court of Appeal ruled that Marlon Brando’s retired housekeeper Blanche Hall, although not a public figure, became involved in an issue of public interest when she was named as a beneficiary in his will while some of Brando’s heirs were disinherited.  Even though Hall did not voluntarily seek publicity, she was deemed to have become involved in a matter of public interest by being named in Brando’s will.  The public issue requirement was also met in Nygard, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula, 159 Cal. App. 4th 1027 (2008), where the court held that statements regarding a Finnish company and founder that were published in a magazine article were of great interest to the Finnish public.

Alternatively, in D.C. v. R.R., 182 Cal. App. 4th 913 (2003), the Court of Appeal held that the public issue requirement was not met just because a statement was made about a person in the public eye.  In that case, derogatory statements were made online against a high school student who had some involvement in acting and singing.  The court emphasized that an issue is not a matter of public interest simply because it involves a statement about a public figure or limited public figure.  Rather, a public issue is implicated if the subject of the statement or activity underlying the claim 1) was a person or entity in the public eye, 2) could affect large numbers of people beyond the direct participants, or 3) involved a topic of widespread, public interest.

Analogizing Albanese’s case to D.C., the Court held that even though there is some public interest in Albanese, there was no evidence of a public controversy concerning Albanese, Menounos, or Dolce & Gabbana.  Rather, their dispute concerning theft was entirely private with no evidence that the disputed remarks were topics of public interest, that Albanese had invited public comment regarding her alleged theft of property, or that Albanese’s fame is so great that her private dispute was of interest to the public.  Thus, having achieved some level of fame does not automatically bring an individual within the “public eye” or make a dispute concerning that individual a “public issue.”