A scandalous Netflix documentary called an unconventional sex-based therapy business an “orgasm cult,” all based on a sole source whose account has several flaws. But the Court of Appeal dismissed the defamation case on anti-SLAPP grounds. Tim and Jeff discuss whether any California defamation case against a media company could survive the one-two punch of anti-SLAPP and NY Times v. Sullivan. They also discuss California’s unique approach to standing—it’s not jurisdictional, it’s purely pragmatic.

• Anti-SLAPP meets documentary defamation: OneTaste Inc. v. Netflix illustrates how courts evaluate actual malice when the plaintiff is treated as at least quasi-public, and how journalistic discretion can sink a claim even where the plaintiff says it provided contrary evidence before publication. Tim flags the built-in squeeze: if public-figure status and the controversy are intertwined, the plaintiff may need discovery to prove merit, but cannot get discovery without first showing merit.
• Standing without injury, by design, not accident: Kashanian v. National Enterprise Systems tees up a standing fight over technical FDCPA disclosure issues, think small-font compliance, with no alleged real-world harm. The takeaway is not subtle: in California, legislative authorization can do a lot of work, and no harm does not necessarily mean no case.
• When the statute creates the bounty, sanctions become the guardrail: The hosts debate whether CCP 128.5 and CCP 128.7 actually deter nuisance filings when the underlying enforcement scheme invites penalty-driven litigation. Is it appropriate—or wise—to use our courts as civil bounty enforcement, devoid of any harm requirement?
• Juror privacy is real, ask the team that wrote the $10,000 check: Don’t research prospective jurors on social media.
• Minute entry, real consequences: A timing skirmish over whether a minute entry can function as an appeal-triggering order ends, for now, with the U.S. Supreme Court declining review. Be conservative in calculating the time to appeal