Loser of SLAPP Case With Facebook to Continue Litigation
Facebook prevailed in a lawsuit against a country-rap artist who sought removal of pages, and the musician said he'll continue the suit. The Court of Appeal of California, 1st Appellate District Division 2, decided last week that Mikel Knight's allegations…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
were insufficient to defeat an anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuits against public participation) motion. The opinion, posted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation that filed an amicus brief for Facebook, reversed in part a lower court ruling. In Cross v. Facebook, Knight, whose real name is Jason Cross, sued because some users created "Families Against Mikel Knight." In a statement, Knight said Friday: "I'm a Texan! A place historically known for fighting big battles and winning. We will see them in the Supreme Court." The page was created after independent album-selling contractors hired by Knight's marketing company were involved in auto crashes. Knight alleged comments incited "violence and death threats" against him and members of his label. Facebook refused to take down the pages. Its anti-SLAPP motion said the suit's claims were barred by the Communications Decency Act and not viable under California law. The trial court said CDA barred three claims but let stand the others including the right of publicity, which protects a form of IP. Knight alleged Facebook continued to place ads on the unauthorized pages and generated revenue using his name or likeness, but the appeals court said he didn't show the ads appearing next to the pages used his name or likeness or were created by Facebook: "Evidence demonstrates that Facebook has not used Knight‘s identity, and any right of publicity claims fail for this reason alone. Likewise for failure to show appropriation." EFF said if the superior court ruling were allowed to stand, it "would have threatened a huge range of online expression."