The case involves a dispute between Ben Yang and Big Sugar Bakeshop concerning a birthday cake for Yang's son. Nicolette Yang ordered a themed cake that included realistic-looking fondant pills, which the Yangs found inappropriate for a child's birthday. Following their dissatisfaction with the bakery's response to a complaint, Ben Yang publicized his grievances on social media, leading to negative repercussions for Big Sugar, including death threats and poor reviews. Big Sugar then sued Yang for libel, slander, and violation of the Unfair Competition Law after he refused to retract his statements. Yang responded with a special motion to strike, which the trial court denied. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that Yang's comments did not pertain to a matter of public interest. The background details reveal disagreements between the parties regarding the communication and understanding surrounding the cake order, including whether it was explicitly stated that the cake was for a child. The Yangs were shocked upon receiving the cake, leading to a series of contentious phone calls between Yang and the bakery, with conflicting accounts of the exchanges. Big Sugar attempted to resolve the issue by offering a replacement cake shortly before the party.
Yang publicly criticized Big Sugar Bakery on social media shortly after an incident involving a birthday cake for his son, alleging that prescription pills were mistakenly placed on the cake instead of jelly beans. He made several inflammatory posts on Instagram and Twitter, calling out Big Sugar for their actions and expressing his intent to discourage others from patronizing the bakery. Yang's posts included claims that the bakery was "canceled," and he accused them of being incompetent and rude during the communication regarding the incident. Following his posts, Big Sugar received numerous threatening calls and messages from Yang's followers, prompting the bakery to alert Yang about the situation. In response, Yang dismissed their concerns, stating that the damage was done.
Big Sugar then issued a demand through legal counsel for Yang to retract his statements, which he failed to do. Consequently, Big Sugar filed a lawsuit against Yang for libel, slander, and violation of the Unfair Competition Law, challenging nine specific statements made by Yang in his social media posts and podcast. The statements highlighted the serious nature of the allegations against Big Sugar, including claims of endangering children and miscommunication regarding the cake's purpose.
Yang filed a special motion to strike Big Sugar's complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, arguing that his statements were made in furtherance of his First Amendment rights and pertained to public interest topics, including candy confusion, a celebrity's lifestyle, and customer service issues at a bakery. Big Sugar opposed the motion, asserting that Yang's statements were merely about a private dispute. The trial court denied Yang's motion, concluding that the statements did not involve public interest and that Big Sugar had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. Yang then appealed.
The review of the ruling on the motion follows a two-step process: first, determining if the claims arose from protected activity, and second, assessing the plaintiff's probability of success on each claim. The court rejected Yang's motion at the first step, acknowledging that while his statements were made in a public forum, they did not qualify as issues of public interest as defined by the statute. The concept of 'public interest' requires a nuanced understanding of the public/private distinction, which has been a subject of legal interpretation. The California Supreme Court has identified three categories of statements that qualify as 'public interest': (1) those concerning a public figure, (2) those affecting a large number of people beyond the immediate parties, and (3) those involving widely relevant topics. Yang's argument focused on the third category, claiming his statements related to the dangers of 'candy confusion' based on studies and warnings from health authorities, suggesting that this connection to public significance warranted protection.
Agile thinkers can connect statements to public concerns through abstraction and popular culture knowledge. The legal precedent requires a substantive link between challenged statements and public interest; mere tangential relationships do not suffice. In *FilmOn.com Inc. v. DoubleVerify Inc.*, statements deemed too loosely connected to public issues lacked protection. The trial court correctly ruled that while "candy confusion" is a public interest topic, Yang's statements did not address this concern, instead aiming to incite public outrage against Big Sugar. Yang's argument that his claims about a cake containing actual pills were relevant was deemed immaterial, as his statements did not pertain to public interest. Yang also incorrectly asserted that his celebrity status and Big Sugar’s notoriety rendered his remarks of public interest, as celebrity alone does not guarantee protection for all statements. Citing *Bernstein v. LaBeouf*, the document emphasizes that a personal dispute cannot be elevated to public interest merely through widespread communication. Yang’s reference to *Serova v. Sony Music Entertainment* is dismissed as irrelevant, focusing instead on the distinction between artistic and commercial speech, highlighting that mere mentions in publications do not elevate Big Sugar's status as a public figure. The conclusion reinforces that proximity to fame does not automatically qualify for public interest protection.
Yang argues that his statements serve the public interest by providing consumer protection information. Courts have recognized the importance of public access to consumer information, particularly as consumerism has grown in the U.S. However, legal protections for such information typically apply only when it extends beyond personal disputes between a buyer and a seller. Yang's complaints regarding a single cake order do not qualify as this broader consumer information; they reflect an attempt at personal revenge rather than a meaningful contribution to consumer discourse.
Previous cases illustrate this distinction. In *Wilbanks v. Wolk*, the defendant's website offered comprehensive consumer advice about viatical insurance, qualifying as protected speech because it served an informative purpose rather than a personal grievance. Similarly, in *Gilbert v. Sykes*, a website provided extensive information about plastic surgery, incorporating individual experiences as part of a larger consumer-oriented narrative. The *Carver v. Bonds* case involved an exposé on unethical practices by a physician, emphasizing public interest rather than a mere complaint. Lastly, in *Wong v. Jing*, a Yelp review about a pediatric dentist was deemed protected because it contributed to a broader public discussion regarding medical practices.
In contrast, Yang's comments lack the necessary context of broader public interest and are characterized as personal attacks, which the courts do not protect under the same standards.
In Chaker v. Mateo (2012), the court addressed a dispute involving Darren Chaker and Nicole Mateo regarding paternity and child support, which escalated due to derogatory comments made by Wendy Mateo, Nicole's mother, against Chaker on various platforms. Wendy accused Chaker of being a deadbeat dad and involved in illegal activities, suggesting potential customers avoid his forensic business. The court noted that some of Wendy's comments served as warnings about Chaker's trustworthiness, particularly occurring after Chaker engaged with the 'topix' website, implying he acknowledged the community's interest in his character.
However, the court distinguished Chaker's case from others, asserting that Wendy's comments reflected personal animosity rather than public interest, thereby questioning the relevance of her statements. In contrast, Yang's statements about Big Sugar's cake were deemed insufficient for protection under consumer rights, as they pertained solely to a single transaction and expressed dissatisfaction rather than contributing to a broader public discourse. The court emphasized scrutiny of the intent behind statements and concluded that Yang's complaints did not engage any public interest, affirming the judgment and awarding costs to the respondent.
