Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-12-15807/USCOURTS-ca9-12-15807-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

CORRECTED 2/10/14

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GREATER LOS ANGELES AGENCY ON

DEAFNESS, INC.; DANIEL JACOB;

EDWARD KELLY; JENNIFER OLSON,

on behalf of themselves and all

others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC.,

incorrectly sued as Time Warner

Inc.,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-15807

D.C. No.

3:11-cv-03458-

LB

OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Laurel D. Beeler, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Argued March 11, 2013

Submitted December 10, 2013

San Francisco, California

Filed February 5, 2014

Before: J. Clifford Wallace, M. Margaret McKeown,

and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge McKeown

 Case: 12-15807, 02/05/2014, ID: 8966150, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 1 of 34
2 GREATER L.A. AGENCY ON DEAFNESS V. CNN

SUMMARY*

California Law / Anti-SLAPP Statute

The panel vacated the district court’s order denying

CNN’s motion brought under California’s anti-SLAPP

statute, seeking to dismiss a lawsuit that sought to secure

equal access for the hearing-impaired by compelling CNN to

caption videos posted on its website.

California’s anti-SLAPP statute provides for the early

dismissal of meritless lawsuits arising from a defendant’s

conduct in furtherance of its free speech rights. The panel

held that plaintiffs’ lawsuit targeted conduct in furtherance of

CNN’s free speech rights and fell within the scope of the antiSLAPP statute. The panel further held that plaintiffs failed to

establish a probability of prevailing on its claims under

California’sUnruh Civil Rights Act because plaintiffs had not

shown intentional discrimination based on disability. The

panel deferred decision on plaintiffs’ claims under

California’s Disabled Persons Act pending further guidance

from the California Supreme Court. The panel also held that

at this juncture, none of CNN’s constitutional challenges

posed a barrier to plaintiffs’ pursuit of its Disabled Persons

Act claims.

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

 Case: 12-15807, 02/05/2014, ID: 8966150, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 2 of 34
GREATER L.A. AGENCY ON DEAFNESS V. CNN 3

COUNSEL

Thomas R. Burke (argued), Rochelle L. Wilcox, Janet L.

Grumer, Jeff Glasser, Davis Wright Tremaine, San Francisco,

California; Ronald London, Davis Wright Tremaine,

Washington, D.C., for Defendant-Appellant.

Laurence W. Paradis (argued), Mary-Lee K. Smith, and

Michael Nunez, Disability Rights Advocates, Berkeley,

California; Linda M. Dardarian and Jason H. Tarricone,

Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen & Dardarian, Oakland,

California; Peter Blanck, Syracuse, New York, for PlaintiffsAppellees.

Karl Olson, Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski, San

Francisco, California, for Amici Curiae Los Angeles Times

Communications LLC, McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., Hearst

Corporation, California Newspaper Publishers Association,

and California Broadcasters Association.

John F. Waldo, Portland, Oregon, for Amici Curiae

Washington State Communication Access Project, Oregon

Communication Access Project, Association of Late

Deafened Adults (ALDA), Aloha State (Hawaii) Association

of the Deaf, Arizona Association of the Deaf, California

Association of the Deaf, Nevada Association of the Deaf,

Idaho Association of the Deaf, and Oregon Association of the

Deaf.

Howard A. Rosenblum and Andrew S. Phillips, National

Association of the Deaf, Silver Spring, Maryland; Blake E.

Reid and Angela J. Campbell, Institute for Public

Representation, Georgetown Law, Washington, D.C., for

Amici Curiae Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of

 Case: 12-15807, 02/05/2014, ID: 8966150, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 3 of 34
4 GREATER L.A. AGENCY ON DEAFNESS V. CNN

Hearing, Inc., National Association of the Deaf, and the

Hearing Loss Association of America.

OPINION

McKEOWN, Circuit Judge:

This appeal—which tests the boundaries of multiple state

laws and reveals tensions between California’s antidiscrimination law, on one hand, and its anti-SLAPP statute,

on the other—boils down to two central questions: Does

California’s anti-SLAPP statute, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code

§§ 425.16 et seq., which permits a defendant to pursue early

dismissal of meritless lawsuits arising from conduct by the

defendant in furtherance of the right of petition or free

speech, apply to a lawsuit seeking to secure equal access for

the hearing-impaired by compelling Cable News Network,

Inc. (“CNN”) to caption videos posted on its web site? And,

if so, has the Greater Los Angeles Agency on Deafness, Inc.

(“GLAD”) discharged its burden to show a probability of

prevailing on the merits of its claims under California’s

Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51 et seq. (“Unruh

Act”), and the California Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Civ.

Code §§ 54 et seq. (“DPA”)?

The magistrate judge answered no to the first question,

declined to reach the second, and denied CNN’s anti-SLAPP

motion. CNN timely appealed. Consistent with the

California legislature’s express command to construe the antiSLAPP statute broadly and our recent precedent, we hold that

GLAD’s action targets conduct in furtherance of CNN’s free

speech rights and falls within the scope of the anti-SLAPP

statute. We also conclude that GLAD has failed to establish

 Case: 12-15807, 02/05/2014, ID: 8966150, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 4 of 34
GREATER L.A. AGENCY ON DEAFNESS V. CNN 5

a probability of prevailing on its Unruh Act claims. The final

question, whether the DPA applies to websites, is an

important question of California law and raises an issue of

significant public concern. We defer decision on GLAD’s

DPA claims pending further guidance from the California

Supreme Court. In a companion order published concurrently

with this opinion, we certify to the California Supreme Court

this remaining dispositive question of state law.

BACKGROUND

I. Statutory and Regulatory Framework for Captioning

Captions in media broadcasts come in various shapes and

sizes. They can identify content, speakers, sound effects,

music, and emotions and may be either open or closed. 

“Closed” captions, unlike their “open” counterparts, are

activated by the viewer and can be turned on and off. Closed

Captioning of Video Programming, 23 FCC Rcd. 16674,

16675 (2008) (declaratory ruling, order, and notice of

proposed rulemaking). In the online context, closed

captioning is defined as “[t]he visual display of the audio

portion of video programming.”

1 Closed Captioning of Video

Programming Delivered Using Internet Protocol, 47 C.F.R.

§ 79.4(a)(6) (2012). Such closed captioning—which GLAD

seeks in its action—“provides access to individuals who are

deaf or hard of hearing.” Closed Captioning of Internet

Protocol-Delivered Video Programming: Implementation of

the Twenty-First Century Communications & Video

1

“Video programming” is defined as “[p]rogramming provided by, or

generally considered comparable to programming provided by, a

television broadcast station, but notincluding consumer-generated media.” 

47 C.F.R. § 79.4(a)(1).

 Case: 12-15807, 02/05/2014, ID: 8966150, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 5 of 34
6 GREATER L.A. AGENCY ON DEAFNESS V. CNN

Accessibility Act of 2010, 77 Fed. Reg. 19480-01, 19480

(Mar. 30, 2012) (to be codified at 47 C.F.R. pts. 15, 79) (final

rule).

To secure better access to video programming for the

hearing-impaired, Congress passed the Telecommunications

Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996) (the

“1996 Act”) (codified as amended at 47 U.S.C. § 613). The

1996 Act directed the Federal Communications Commission

(“FCC”) to impose a closed captioning requirement for video

programming broadcasted on television. Id. In line with this

congressional directive, the FCC adopted rules and

implementation schedules for closed captioning of television

programming. See Closed Captioning & Video Description

of Video Programming, 13 FCC Rcd. 3272, 3273 (1997)

(report and order).

In 2010, in response to the growing presence of video

programming on the Internet, Congress enacted the TwentyFirst Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act

(“CVAA”), Pub. L. No. 111-260, 124 Stat. 2751 (2010)

(codified at 47 U.S.C. § 613). The CVAA amended the 1996

Act and directed the FCC to revise its regulations to require

closed captioning of certain online video programming. See

47 U.S.C. § 613(c)(2). In January 2012, during the pendency

of this appeal, the FCC promulgated its online captioning

rules, which took effect on March 30, 2012. See Closed

Captioning of Internet Protocol-Delivered Video

Programming, 77 Fed. Reg. at 19480–81. The FCC’s 2012

captioning rules require closed captioning of “full-length

video programming delivered using Internet protocol . . . if

the programming is published or exhibited on television in

the United States with captions.” 47 C.F.R. § 79.4(b). Under

the 2012 captioning rules, online video clips—defined as

 Case: 12-15807, 02/05/2014, ID: 8966150, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 6 of 34
GREATER L.A. AGENCY ON DEAFNESS V. CNN 7

“[e]xcerpts of full-length video programming,” id.

§ 79.4(a)(12)—are excluded from the online captioning

requirement, see id. §§ 79.4(a)(2), (b). The 1996 Act, as

amended by the CVAA, and the FCC’s 2012 captioning rules

do not authorize a private right of action to enforce alleged

violations of the online captioning requirement and instead

provide that the FCC “shall have exclusive jurisdiction with

respect to any complaint” alleging such violations. 47 U.S.C.

§ 613(j); 47 C.F.R. § 79.4(f).

II. GLAD’s Lawsuit

CNN is a wholly owned subsidiary of Turner

Broadcasting System, Inc., which “is ultimately wholly

owned by Time Warner Inc.” CNN operates CNN.com, a

publicly accessible web site containing online news videos. 

Most of these online videos are short video clips that excerpt

programming previously broadcasted on television by CNN;

some of the videos are shown exclusively on CNN.com. 

Approximately 100 to 120 video clips are posted on

CNN.com every day, and the site features a searchable web

archive of thousands of news videos. Although text articles

accompany some of these online videos, none of them had

closed captions at the time GLAD brought this action.

In December 2010, GLAD requested that Time Warner

Inc. (“Time Warner”) caption all of the videos on its news

web sites, including CNN.com, to provide hearing-impaired

visitors full access to the online videos. CNN responded that

it offered a number of text-based services and explained that

CNN would be “ready to provide whatever web access” thenpending federal rulemaking actions regarding the captioning

of online videos “ultimately required.”

 Case: 12-15807, 02/05/2014, ID: 8966150, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 7 of 34
8 GREATER L.A. AGENCY ON DEAFNESS V. CNN

Unable to reach an agreement with CNN over closed

captioning, GLAD filed this putative class action in

California state court in June 2011, six months before the

FCC promulgated the 2012 online captioning rules. In its

Complaint, GLAD alleged that CNN2violated the Unruh Act

and the DPA by intentionally excluding deaf and hard of

hearing visitors from accessing the videos on CNN.com. For

these violations, GLAD requests damages, declaratory relief,

fees and costs, and a preliminary and permanent injunction

“requiring [CNN] to take steps necessary to ensure that the

benefits and advantages offered by CNN.com are fully and

equally enjoyable to persons who are deaf or have hearing

loss in California.”3

CNN removed this action to federal court, and the parties

consented to jurisdiction before a magistrate judge. CNN

filed a motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP law,

arguing that GLAD’s Unruh Act and DPA claims arose from

conduct in furtherance of CNN’s free speech rights and that

GLAD had failed to establish a probability of prevailing on

its claims. The magistrate judge denied CNN’s anti-SLAPP

motion on the ground that CNN’s conduct was not in

2 Although GLAD initially named Time Warner as defendant in the

complaint, the parties stipulated that CNN would be substituted for Time

Warner.

3 Because GLAD requests closed captioning for all current and future

videos posted on CNN.com, including video clips and other programming

that fall outside the scope of the FCC’s 2012 online captioning rules, see

47 C.F.R. § 79.4 (requiring closed captioning only for full-length videos

initially broadcasted with captions in the United States after certain dates),

this appeal is not moot, Chafin v. Chafin, 133 S. Ct. 1017, 1023 (2013)

(“[A] case becomes moot only when it is impossible for a court to grant

any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.” (internal quotation

marks omitted)).

 Case: 12-15807, 02/05/2014, ID: 8966150, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 8 of 34
GREATER L.A. AGENCY ON DEAFNESS V. CNN 9

furtherance of its free speech rights. Although

acknowledging CNN’s constitutionally protected right to

publish online news videos, the magistrate judge found that

CNN’s speech merely “lurk[ed] in the background” of

GLAD’s action. The magistrate judge also rejected CNN’s

contention that GLAD’s requested closed captioning

requirement would deprive CNN of editorial control by

forcing it to adopt an error-prone and costly technology. 

Relying on the D.C. Circuit’s dicta in Motion Picture

Association of America, Inc. v. FCC, 309 F.3d 796, 803 (D.C.

Cir. 2002) (“MPAA”), the magistrate judge observed that

“closed captioning is mechanical transcription that does not

implicate content and the First Amendment.”

ANALYSIS

California’s anti-SLAPP statute, enacted in 1992,

provides “for the early dismissal of unmeritorious claims

filed to interfere with the valid exercise of the constitutional

rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of

grievances.” Club Members for an Honest Election v. Sierra

Club, 196 P.3d 1094, 1098 (Cal. 2008). In 1997, the

California legislature amended the anti-SLAPP statute to state

explicitly that the statute “shall be construed broadly.” Cal.

Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(a) (as amended by Stats. 1997, ch.

271, § 1). Consonant with this legislative directive, the

California Supreme Court has interpreted the anti-SLAPP

statute broadly, cautioning that a narrow construction “would

serve Californians poorly.” E.g., Briggs v. Eden Council for

Hope & Opportunity, 19 Cal. 4th 1106, 1120–22 (1999). 

Taking our cue from the California legislature and courts, we

have followed suit. See, e.g., Manufactured Home Comtys.

v. Cnty. of San Diego, 655 F.3d 1171, 1176 (9th Cir. 2011)

(“The legislature instructed courts that the statute shall be

 Case: 12-15807, 02/05/2014, ID: 8966150, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 9 of 34
10 GREATER L.A. AGENCY ON DEAFNESS V. CNN

construed broadly.” (internal quotation marks omitted));

Hilton v. Hallmark Cards, 599 F.3d 894, 906 (9th Cir. 2010)

(amended opinion) (collecting cases); Vess v. Ciba-Geigy

Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1109 (9th Cir. 2003) (same).

In determining whether GLAD’s action must be stricken

under the broadly construed anti-SLAPP statute, we engage

in a two-step inquiry. See, e.g., Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.

4th 82, 88 (2002). First, we must determine whether CNN

has made a prima facie showing that GLAD’s action arises

from conduct in furtherance of the exercise of CNN’s

constitutional right of petition or free speech in connection

with an issue of public interest. See id. If CNN satisfies this

threshold showing, the burden then shifts to GLAD at the

second step to establish, by competent evidence, a probability

that it will prevail on its Unruh Act and DPA claims. See id.;

see also Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(b)(1). In evaluating

CNN’s anti-SLAPP motion, we consider “the pleadings, and

supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon

which the liability or defense is based.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code

§ 425.16(b)(2).

I. Anti-SLAPP Step One: Act in Furtherance of Free

Speech Rights

At the first step of the anti-SLAPP analysis, we ask

whether GLAD’s state law claims are based on conduct in

furtherance of CNN’s right of free speech in connection with

a matter of public interest. See City of Cotati v. Cashman,

29 Cal. 4th 69, 78 (2002); Martinez v. Metabolife Int’l, Inc.,

113 Cal. App. 4th 181, 188 (2003) (“[I]t is the principal

thrust or gravamen of the plaintiff’s cause of action that

determines whether the anti-SLAPP statute applies . . . .”

(citation omitted)). California courts “have interpreted this

 Case: 12-15807, 02/05/2014, ID: 8966150, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 10 of 34
GREATER L.A. AGENCY ON DEAFNESS V. CNN 11

piece of the defendant’s threshold showing rather loosely,”

Hilton, 599 F.3d at 904, and have held that “a court must

generally presume the validity of the claimed constitutional

right in the first step of the anti-SLAPP analysis, and then

permit the parties to address the issue in the second step of

the analysis, if necessary,” City of Los Angeles v. Animal Def.

League, 135 Cal. App. 4th 606, 621 (2006) (internal

quotation marks omitted).

GLAD does not, and cannot, dispute that CNN’s speech

relates to a matter of public interest or that CNN has a

protected free speech right to report the news. See Lieberman

v. KCOP Television, Inc., 110 Cal. App. 4th 156, 165–66

(2003). The issue we must decide is whether GLAD’s action

takes aim at an act that furthers CNN’s free speech rights. 

“An act is in furtherance of the right of free speech if the act

helps to advance that right or assists in the exercise of that

right.” Tamkin v. CBS Broad., Inc., 193 Cal. App. 4th 133,

143 (2011). This is a classic case where framing the issue

influences the outcome of the determination. Adhering to the

California legislature’s mandate to construe the anti-SLAPP

statute broadly, we conclude that CNN has made a prima

facie showing that GLAD’s claims arise from CNN’s conduct

in furtherance of its right to report the news.

Our recent decision in Doe v. Gangland Productions, Inc.,

730 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2013) leads to this result. In

Gangland, the plaintiff sued two production companies for

broadcasting a television documentarywithout concealing his

identity. Id. at 951–52. The production companies filed a

motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, and

the district court denied the motion on the ground that the

production companies’ conduct was not in furtherance of

their free speech rights because the television broadcast

 Case: 12-15807, 02/05/2014, ID: 8966150, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 11 of 34
12 GREATER L.A. AGENCY ON DEAFNESS V. CNN

merely lurked in the background of the plaintiff’s tort claims. 

Id. at 952–55. We reversed in part because the production

companies satisfied their threshold burden at the first step of

the anti-SLAPP inquiry. Id. at 953–55. We reasoned that the

plaintiff’s claims were based on the companies’ pre-broadcast

interviews, which were in furtherance of their right of free

speech. Id. at 953–54. We also explained that the plaintiff’s

action arose “directly from Defendants’ act of broadcasting

Gangland” and that “[b]ut for the broadcast and Defendants’

actions in connection with that broadcast, Plaintiff would

have no reason to sue Defendants.” Id. at 955.

Although Gangland involved a lawsuit challenging a prepublication interview, its rationale has equal force here. As

in Gangland, GLAD’s action arises directly from CNN’s

decision to publish and its publication of online news videos

without closed captions and seeks an injunction that would

require CNN to adopt such captions for every video on its

web site. Like the plaintiff in Gangland, GLAD would have

no reason to sue CNN absent the news videos on CNN.com. 

Indeed, GLAD acknowledges in its Complaint that CNN

“goes to great effort to create and offer visitors to CNN.com

video content precisely because many visitors prefer to

experience the combined visual and audible content of a

video” and asserts that CNN has “intentionally presented the

video content on CNN.com in a way” that is inaccessible to

hearing-impaired individuals. Under the FCC’s 2012 online

captioning rules, CNN is required to caption only the fulllength videos initially broadcast on television. 47 C.F.R.

§ 79.4(b). But CNN’s web site includes many broadcasts and

clips that are not part of the television broadcast. As CNN

explains, many of the videos on CNN.com are shorter video

clips, and some of its news videos are shown exclusively on

CNN.com. The web site contains far broader content than

 Case: 12-15807, 02/05/2014, ID: 8966150, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 12 of 34
GREATER L.A. AGENCY ON DEAFNESS V. CNN 13

CNN’s television broadcast, and CNN makes affirmative

decisions about what content to post on its web site and how

that content is displayed. The decision to forego captioning

is part of this editorial discretion and furthers CNN’s free

speech right to report the news.

Even if GLAD does not request any changes to the

substantive content of CNN’s online news videos, GLAD, by

its own admission, seeks to change the way CNN has chosen

to report and deliver that news content by imposing a sitewide captioning requirement on CNN.com. In doing so,

GLAD targets conduct that advances and assists CNN in

exercising its protected right to report the news. See Hunter

v. CBS Broad., Inc., 165 Cal. Rptr. 3d 123, 130–33 (Cal. Ct.

App. 2013) (holding that a lawsuit arising from broadcasting

company’s allegedly discriminatory selection of a news

anchor targeted conduct in furtherance of company’s free

speech rights); cf. Rivera v. First Databank, Inc., 187 Cal.

App. 4th 709, 715–17 (2010) (holding that lawsuit targeting

“confusing language and format of [a] monograph” fell

within scope of anti-SLAPP law); Kronemyer v. Internet

Movie Data Base, Inc., 150 Cal. App. 4th 941, 944, 947

(2007) (holding that the defendant’s refusal to list plaintiff’s

name in credits was an act in furtherance of the defendant’s

free speech right not to speak). CNN’s free speech rights do

not merely lurk in the background of this case.

Attempting to elude the scope of the anti-SLAPP statute,

GLAD attempts to frame its action as targeting CNN’s

“refusal to caption its online videos” rather than “CNN’s

presentation and publication of the news.” In GLAD’s view,

its action demands nothing more than the neutral application

of California’s anti-discrimination laws to “CNN’s

 Case: 12-15807, 02/05/2014, ID: 8966150, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 13 of 34
14 GREATER L.A. AGENCY ON DEAFNESS V. CNN

mechanical delivery process for its online news videos”

without regard to the substantive content of those videos.

In support of its argument, GLAD relies on two D.C.

Circuit cases and an FCC order. See MPAA, 309 F.3d at 803

(distinguishing captioning from regulations that were “related

to [a] program’s content” and noting that unlike creative

works, “closed captioning is a straight translation of dialogue

into text” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Gottfried v.

FCC, 655 F.2d 297, 311 n.54 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (“A captioning

requirement would not significantly interfere with program

content.”), rev’d on other grounds, Cmty. Television of So.

Cal. v. Gottfried, 459 U.S. 498 (1983); Implementation of

Video Description of Video Programming, 15 FCC Rcd.

15230, 15255 (2000) (noting that, in Gottfried, the D.C.

Circuit concluded “that any requirement to provide

programming with closed captioning would not violate the

First Amendment”), modified, 16 FCC Rcd. 1251 (Jan. 18,

2001).

The D.C. Circuit cases and FCC order address whether a

captioning requirement would violate the First Amendment,

a question more appropriately reserved in this case for the

second step. The California legislature “did not intend that in

order to invoke the special motion to strike the defendant

must first establish [his or] her actions are constitutionally

protected under the First Amendment as a matter of law.” 

Governor Gray Davis Comm. v. Am. Taxpayers Alliance, 102

Cal. App. 4th 449, 458 (2002) (alterations in original)

(internal quotation marks omitted). The question at the first

step is a different one: namely, whether GLAD’s action is

based on conduct in furtherance of CNN’s free speech. Even

if we accept GLAD’s narrow view that its action targets

CNN’s refusal to adopt closed captioning as opposed to

 Case: 12-15807, 02/05/2014, ID: 8966150, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 14 of 34
GREATER L.A. AGENCY ON DEAFNESS V. CNN 15

CNN’s presentation of the news, our conclusion would

remain the same: CNN’s decision to display videos on

CNN.com without closed captioning prior to the FCC’s

online captioning rules—even if not itself an exercise of free

speech—constitutes conduct in furtherance of CNN’s

protected right to report the news.

Motivated by concerns about the potential costs, delay,

and inaccuracies caused by captioning, CNN made the

editorial decision to forego captioning when delivering and

reporting the news on its web site. Although GLAD presents

conflicting evidence as to the putative expense and

inaccuracies imposed by closed captioning, that evidence,

even if fully credited, does not alter our view that CNN has

made the requisite prima facie showing that GLAD’s action

targets an act—declining to caption online news videos—that

furthers CNN’s free speech right to report the news. GLAD’s

evidence is instead more relevant to the question of the

relative burden imposed by the captioning requirement for

purposes of the First Amendment inquiry, which we address

at step two of the anti-SLAPP inquiry.

In concluding that CNN’s conduct is in furtherance of its

free speech rights on a matter of public interest, we do not

imply that every action against a media organization or any

action imposing increased costs against such an organization

falls within the scope of California’s anti-SLAPP statute. Nor

do we suggest that the broad construction of the anti-SLAPP

statute triggers its application in any case marginally related

to a defendant’s exercise of free speech. We adopt instead a

much more limited holding: where, as here, an action directly

targets the way a content provider chooses to deliver, present,

or publish news content on matters of public interest, that

action is based on conduct in furtherance of free speech rights

 Case: 12-15807, 02/05/2014, ID: 8966150, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 15 of 34
16 GREATER L.A. AGENCY ON DEAFNESS V. CNN

and must withstand scrutiny under California’s anti-SLAPP

statute.

II. Anti-SLAPP Step Two: Probability of Prevailing on

Merits

Because CNN has made the threshold showing at step one

of the anti-SLAPP analysis, we next determine whether

GLAD has demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the

merits of its Unruh Act and DPA claims. Although the

magistrate judge did not reach the second step of the analysis,

at the parties’ urging and in the spirit of judicial economy, we

exercise our discretion to decide this legal issue in the first

instance. See, e.g., Wallace v. McCubbin, 196 Cal. App. 4th

1169, 1195 (2011) (“[W]e have discretion to decide the

[second anti-SLAPP] issue ourselves, since it is subject to

independent review.”). To satisfy its burden under the second

step, GLAD must demonstrate that its claims have “only a

minimum level of legal sufficiency and triability.” Soukup v.

Law Offices of Herbert Hafif, 139 P.3d 30, 51 (Cal. 2006)

(internal quotation marks omitted). In determining whether

GLAD has satisfied this low burden, we “neither ‘weigh

credibility [nor] compare the weight of the evidence. Rather,

[we] accept as true the evidence favorable to the plaintiff . . . .

and evaluate the defendant’s evidence only to determine if it

has defeated that submitted by the plaintiff as a matter of

law.’” Id. at 36 n.3 (alterations in original) (citation omitted).

A. Unruh Act Claims

GLAD has failed to establish a probability of success on

the merits of its Unruh Act claims because it has not shown

intentional discrimination based on disability as required

under California law.

 Case: 12-15807, 02/05/2014, ID: 8966150, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 16 of 34
GREATER L.A. AGENCY ON DEAFNESS V. CNN 17

The Unruh Act provides that “[a]ll persons within the

jurisdiction of [California] are free and equal, and no matter

what their . . . disability [or] medical condition . . . are

entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages,

facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments

of every kind whatsoever.” Cal. Civ. Code § 51(b). By its

terms, the Unruh Act “does not extend to practices and

policies that apply equally to all persons.” Turner v. Ass’n of

Am. Med. Colls., 167 Cal. App. 4th 1401, 1408 (2008) (citing

Cal. Civ. Code § 51(c)). Thus, to establish a violation of the

Unruh Act independent of a claim under the Americans with

Disabilities Act (“ADA”), GLAD must “plead and prove

intentional discrimination in public accommodations in

violation of the terms of the Act.” Munson v. Del Taco, Inc.,

208 P.3d 623, 627 (Cal. 2009) (internal quotation marks

omitted). The California Supreme Court has clarified that the

Unruh Act contemplates “willful, affirmative misconduct on

the part of those who violate the Act” and that a plaintiff must

therefore allege, and show, more than the disparate impact of

a facially neutral policy. Koebke v. Bernardo Heights

Country Club, 115 P.3d 1212, 1228–29 (Cal. 2005) (internal

quotation marks omitted); Harris v.Capital Growth Investors

XIV, 805 P.2d 873, 893 (Cal. 1991), superseded by statute on

other grounds as explained in Munson, 208 P.3d at 627–30;

see also Cullen v. Netflix, Inc., 880 F. Supp. 2d 1017,

1024–25 (N.D. Cal. 2012); Young v. Facebook, Inc., 790 F.

Supp. 2d 1110, 1116 (N.D. Cal. 2011).

The California Court of Appeal’s reasoning in Belton v.

Comcast Cable Holdings, LLC, 151 Cal. App. 4th 1224

(2007) is instructive. There, the plaintiffs, who were legally

blind, alleged that Comcast violated the Unruh Act by

packaging music services with television programming

without an option for consumers, particularly blind

 Case: 12-15807, 02/05/2014, ID: 8966150, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 17 of 34
18 GREATER L.A. AGENCY ON DEAFNESS V. CNN

individuals, to buy the music service alone. Id. at 1229–30,

1237. Rejecting the plaintiffs’ Unruh Act claims, the court

explained that Comcast’s practice of packaging and selling its

products “applied equally to sighted and blind subscribers”

because both groups were required to purchase services under

the same policy. Id. at 1237. The court thus concluded that

Comcast’s policy, which was neutral on its face, was not

actionable despite the alleged disproportionate impact on

blind people. Id. at 1237–39.

Here, GLAD has similarly failed to establish the

intentional discrimination needed to sustain an Unruh Act

claim. At the time GLAD initiated this action, CNN did not

offer closed captioning on any news video displayed on

CNN.com. As such, its policy of displaying online video

programming without closed captioning applied equally to all

CNN.com visitors, hearing-impaired or not. Such conduct

does not demonstrate CNN’s “willful, affirmative

misconduct” or intentional discrimination and, therefore, it

cannot form the basis of an Unruh Act violation. Koebke,

115 P.3d at 1227–28 (internal quotation marks omitted); see

also Cullen, 880 F. Supp. 2d at 1024–25 (holding that

plaintiff failed to state an Unruh Act claim by alleging that

Netflix failed to “caption a meaningful amount of its

streaming library” because such conduct was not “willful,

affirmative misconduct”); Young, 790 F. Supp. 2d at 1114,

1116 (holding that plaintiff failed to state an Unruh Act claim

by alleging that Facebook’s customer service system was

difficult for her to use due to her bipolar disorder because

Facebook’s customer service system treated “all users in the

same cold, automated way”).

Although GLAD’s Complaint asserts that CNN

intentionally excluded deaf and hard of hearing individuals

 Case: 12-15807, 02/05/2014, ID: 8966150, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 18 of 34
GREATER L.A. AGENCY ON DEAFNESS V. CNN 19

from accessing CNN.com, these allegations fail to establish

even a minimal showing of intentional discrimination and are

belied by the record. In response to GLAD’s captioning

request, CNN stated that it offered a number of text-based

services and explained that it would be “ready to provide

whatever web access is ultimately required” by the FCC’s

then-pending captioning rules. Notably absent from the

record is any evidence supporting an inference that CNN

intentionally discriminated against hearing-impaired

individuals on account of their disability. That hearingimpaired individuals bore the brunt of CNN’s neutral policy

is insufficient to support an Unruh Act claim. See Koebke,

115 P.3d at 1227–29.4

GLAD’s reliance on Hankins v. El Torito Restaurants,

Inc., 63 Cal. App. 4th 510 (1998) is misplaced. As an initial

matter, Hankins does nothing to alter the California Supreme

Court’s clear statement in both Harris and Koebke that the

Unruh Act requires a showing of willful, affirmative

misconduct to establish intentional discrimination, a showing

that GLAD simply cannot make on this record. Furthermore,

unlike in Hankins, where the defendant restaurant denied

4

In Koebke, the California Supreme Court “acknowledged that evidence

of disparate impact could be admitted in Unruh Civil Rights Act cases

because such evidence may be probative of intentional discrimination in

some cases . . . .” 115 P.3d at 1229 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

GLAD offers no evidence or argument that the disparate impact against

hearing-impaired individuals is probative of CNN’s intentional

discrimination against the deaf and hard of hearing. Nor does GLAD

adequately address, much less rebut, CNN’s evidence that, even before

this action, “CNN has been an active participant with the FCC in

developing standards for closed captioning of IP video, and has [had]

every intention of complying with” the FCC’s now-implemented 2012

online captioning rules.

 Case: 12-15807, 02/05/2014, ID: 8966150, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 19 of 34
20 GREATER L.A. AGENCY ON DEAFNESS V. CNN

physically handicapped patrons access to a restroom that was

otherwise available, GLAD seeks a service—closed

captioning for online videos—that is denied to all visitors of

CNN.com on a neutral basis. See id. at 518 (holding that

restaurant intentionally discriminated where “a combination

of [the restaurant’s] policy and the physical layout of its

premises allowed patrons who were not physically

handicapped to use a restroom . . . but denied that same

service to physically handicapped patrons even though there

was a restroom on the premises . . . that a physically disabled

person could otherwise use” (emphasis added)). CNN does

not intentionally withhold from the hearing-impaired

captioned videos that are otherwise available.

Equally unconvincing is GLAD’s misguided effort to

import the “deliberate indifference” standard into the Unruh

Act context. Seizing upon a lone parenthetical in Green v.

San Diego Unified School District, 226 F. App’x 677 (9th

Cir. 2007), one of our unpublished, nonprecedential

dispositions, and other inapposite cases, GLAD urges that

“intentional discrimination under the Unruh Act consists of

knowledge that a protected right is substantially likely to be

infringed upon, and a failure to act upon that knowledge –

‘deliberate indifference.’” We decline to adopt the deliberate

indifference standard in light of the California Supreme

Court’sstatement that a showing of intentional discrimination

under the Unruh Act contemplates “willful, affirmative

misconduct.” Koebke, 115 P.3d at 1228 (emphasis added)

(internal quotation marks omitted). We further reject

GLAD’s unsubstantiated claim that CNN failed to act upon

knowledge that the protected rights of the deaf and hard of

hearing would be violated absent closed captioning of

CNN.com videos. Consequently, GLAD’s Unruh Act claims

 Case: 12-15807, 02/05/2014, ID: 8966150, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 20 of 34
GREATER L.A. AGENCY ON DEAFNESS V. CNN 21

lack even the minimal merit necessary to withstand CNN’s

anti-SLAPP challenge.

B. DPA Claims: CNN’s Constitutional Arguments

CNN also attacks GLAD’s state law claims on

constitutional grounds, arguing that GLAD’s claims and

requested relief are preempted by federal law, violate CNN’s

free speech rights, and run afoul of the dormant Commerce

Clause. Typically, we would not reach these constitutional

issues if the case could be resolved on other grounds. United

States v. Sandoval–Lopez, 122 F.3d 797, 802 n.9 (9th Cir.

1997); see also Lee v. Walters, 433 F.3d 672, 677 (9th Cir.

2005) (“A fundamental and longstanding principle of judicial

restraint requires that courts avoid reaching constitutional

questions in advance of the necessity of deciding them.”

(internal quotation marks omitted)). Because we are

certifying the DPA claims to the California Supreme Court,

it is appropriate to address CNN’s constitutional arguments

as to those claims to assure the California Supreme Court that

certification is both necessary and dispositive of this appeal.

At this juncture, none of CNN’s constitutional challenges

pose a barrier to GLAD’s pursuit of its DPA claims. We

reiterate, however, that we decide only whether GLAD has

demonstrated a “probability” that its DPA claims will prevail. 

Soukup, 139 P.3d at 50–51. This requires only that the claims

be “legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima

facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the

evidence submitted by [GLAD] is credited.” Id. at 51

(internal quotation marks omitted). Even if GLAD’s DPA

claims have the requisite “minimal merit” to survive CNN’s

anti-SLAPP challenge, GLAD must still prove its claims with

competent evidence in the district court. See id.

 Case: 12-15807, 02/05/2014, ID: 8966150, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 21 of 34
22 GREATER L.A. AGENCY ON DEAFNESS V. CNN

Accordingly, CNN could still prevail on those of its

constitutional arguments that depend upon issues of fact at a

later stage of the case. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code

§ 425.16(b)(3) (“If the court determines that the plaintiff has

established a probability that he or she will prevail on the

claim, neither that determination nor the fact of that

determination shall be admissible in evidence at any later

stage of the case, or in any subsequent action, and no burden

of proof or degree of proof otherwise applicable shall be

affected by that determination in any later stage of the case or

in any subsequent proceeding.”).

1. Preemption

We first address whether federal law preempts GLAD’s

DPA claims under the related doctrines of field preemption

and conflict preemption. In analyzing preemption claims, we

ordinarily “assume that the historic police powers of the

States are not superseded unless that was the clear and

manifest purpose of Congress.” Arizona v. United States,

132 S. Ct. 2492, 2501 (2012) (internal quotation marks

omitted). CNN maintains that the presumption against

preemption does not apply because there has been a history

of significant federal regulation of closed captioning. See

Ting v. AT&T, 319 F.3d 1126, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003). We need

not pass on this preliminary question because even without

this presumption, GLAD has shown that, based on the

evidence before us, its DPA claims have the minimal merit

needed to withstand CNN’s preemption challenges.

a. Field Preemption

Under the doctrine of field preemption, “the States are

precluded from regulating conduct in a field that Congress,

 Case: 12-15807, 02/05/2014, ID: 8966150, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 22 of 34
GREATER L.A. AGENCY ON DEAFNESS V. CNN 23

acting within its proper authority, has determined must be

regulated by its exclusive governance.” Arizona, 132 S. Ct.

at 2501. Field preemption “can be inferred either where there

is a regulatory framework ‘so pervasive . . . that Congress left

no room for the States to supplement it’ or where the ‘federal

interest [is] so dominant that the federal system will be

assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same

subject.’” Valle del Sol Inc. v. Whiting, 732 F.3d 1006, 1023

(9th Cir. 2013) (alteration in original) (quoting Arizona,

132 S. Ct. at 2501). The 1996 Act, as amended by the

CVAA, and the FCC’s implementing regulations do not

occupy the legislative field of closed captioning of videos on

the Internet.

For one, the 1996 Act, which dealt with closed captioning

of television programming, expressly provides that the act

“shall not be construed to modify, impair, or supersede

Federal, State, or local law unless expressly so provided.” 

1996 Act, Title VI, § 601(c)(1) (reprinted in 47 U.S.C. § 152,

historical and statutory notes). This savings clause—which

Congress left intact when it passed the CVAA—signifies that

Congress did not intend to occupy the entire legislative field

of closed captioning or to prohibit all private rights of action

under state law, including the DPA.

Even if the 1996 Act evinced Congress’s intent to

preempt the field of closed captioning for television

programming, the CVAA and the FCC’s 2012 online

captioning rules left ample room for state laws to supplement

the federal regulatory scheme for online Internet closed

captioning. Limited in its scope, the CVAA instructed the

FCC to impose an online captioning requirement on a discrete

subset of online video programming: namely, full-length

video programming broadcasted on television with captions

 Case: 12-15807, 02/05/2014, ID: 8966150, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 23 of 34
24 GREATER L.A. AGENCY ON DEAFNESS V. CNN

in the United States after the effective date of the FCC’s

regulations. See 47 U.S.C. § 613(c)(2)(A). Complying with

this circumscribed directive, the FCC promulgated online

captioning rules that were also limited in scope. See Closed

Captioning of Internet Protocol-Delivered Video

Programming, 77 Fed. Reg. at 19489 (“We interpret Section

202(b) [of the CVAA] to cover any programming delivered

to consumers using [internet protocol], provided that the

programming was published or exhibited on television with

captions after the effective date of the regulations.”). Neither

the CVAA nor the FCC regulations regulate shorter online

video clips, full-length videos that were not shown on

American television, or videos shown before the effective

date of the FCC’s online captioning rules.

We decline CNN’s invitation to interpret the limited

scope of the federal captioning scheme for online videos as

indicative of Congress’s intent to preclude broader regulation

of online closed captioning under state law. In Sprietsma v.

Mercury Marine, 537 U.S. 51 (2002), upon which CNN

relies, the Supreme Court declined to view an agency’s

“decision not to adopt a regulation . . . as the functional

equivalent of a regulation prohibiting all States and their

political subdivisions from adopting such a regulation,”

where, as here, there was no authoritative statement or ruling

from Congress or the agency precluding state regulation. Id.

at 65–68. Thus, the limited federal regulatory and statutory

framework does not occupy the field of closed captioning,

particularly for online video programming.

5

5 Although the CVAA and the FCC’s implementing regulations do not

“authorize any private right of action to enforce any requirement of this

section” and instead provide that the FCC “shall have exclusive

jurisdiction . . . [over] any complaint under this section,” 47 U.S.C.

 Case: 12-15807, 02/05/2014, ID: 8966150, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 24 of 34
GREATER L.A. AGENCY ON DEAFNESS V. CNN 25

b. Conflict Preemption

At this stage, CNN fares no better under its related theory

of conflict preemption. Conflict preemption applies “where

compliance with both federal and state regulations is a

physical impossibility,” and in “those instances where the

challenged state law stands as an obstacle to the

accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and

objectives of Congress.” Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2501 (internal

quotation marks omitted). Based on the pleadings and limited

evidentiary record in this case, GLAD has shown that its

claims have a “minimum level of legal sufficiency and

triability” to withstand CNN’s conflict preemption challenge

at this early stage of the litigation. Soukup, 139 P.3d at 51

(internal quotation marks omitted).

Crediting GLAD’s evidence only for purposes of this

anti-SLAPP appeal, we conclude that CNN’s compliance

with the CVAA, applicable FCC regulations, and the DPA is

not “a physical impossibility.” Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2501

(internal quotation marks omitted). As noted earlier, the

CVAA and FCC regulations are limited to a subset of all

online videos and require closed captioning of those videos

under a specified timetable. For CNN.com videos outside the

scope of the federal captioning scheme, nothing in the CVAA

or the FCC’s regulations conflicts with GLAD’s right to seek

a broader closed captioning requirement encompassing those

§ 613(j) (emphasis added); 47 C.F.R. § 79.4(f), the FCC’s exclusive

jurisdiction over complaints under the CVAA does nothing to extinguish

GLAD’s right to pursue broader relief for online captioning under the

DPA, see National Ass’n of the Deaf v. Netflix, Inc. (“NAD”), 869 F.

Supp. 2d 196, 205 (D. Mass. 2012) (“There is no indication that the

CVAA . . . extinguishes private rights of action under the ADA for closed

captioning of video programming on the Internet.”).

 Case: 12-15807, 02/05/2014, ID: 8966150, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 25 of 34
26 GREATER L.A. AGENCY ON DEAFNESS V. CNN

videos under California law or with its ability to comply with

state-imposed requirements. NAD, 869 F. Supp. 2d at

203–05. To the extent that the federal captioning scheme and

the DPA may require different captioning requirements or

deadlines, these differences do not “create a ‘positive

repugnancy’ between the two laws” or otherwise demonstrate

an irreconcilable conflict between federal law and the DPA

because CNN can comply with both. Id. at 205 (quoting

Conn. Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253 (1992)).

Nor does the record, at this procedural juncture, lead to

the conclusion that the DPA presents an obstacle to

Congress’s purpose in enacting a federal captioning scheme

for online video programming. Congress’s purpose in

enacting the CVAA was to “update the communications laws

to help ensure that individuals with disabilities are able to

fully utilize communications services and equipment and

better access video programming.” S. Rep. No. 111-386

(2010). The limited record in this anti-SLAPP appeal

suggests that applying the DPA to compel CNN to caption its

online news videos for California visitors may supplement,

rather than impede, the underlying purposes of the federal

captioning scheme for online news videos. Consequently, we

cannot conclude, on the pleadings and record before us, that

GLAD’s DPA claims are foreclosed by the doctrine of

conflict preemption.

2. Freedom of Speech

CNN next argues that imposing a closed captioning

requirement under the DPA violates CNN’s free speech rights

under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution

 Case: 12-15807, 02/05/2014, ID: 8966150, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 26 of 34
GREATER L.A. AGENCY ON DEAFNESS V. CNN 27

and Article I, Section 2 of the California Constitution.6 CNN

chiefly contends that interpreting the DPA to require closed

captioning on CNN.com imposes either an unconstitutional

prior restraint or alternatively an impermissible burden on

CNN’s speech that fails intermediate scrutiny.

7 Accepting as

true the evidence favorable to GLAD, we hold that GLAD’s

DPA claims have the requisite minimal merit to survive

CNN’s free speech challenge.

a. Prior Restraint

“Prior restraints on speech are disfavored and carry a

heavy presumption of invalidity.” Long Beach Area Peace

Network v. City of Long Beach, 574 F.3d 1011, 1023 (9th Cir.

2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). A prior restraint is

an administrative or judicial order that forbids certain

communications issued before those communications occur. 

Alexander v. United States, 509 U.S. 544, 549–50 (1993). As

the Supreme Court has recognized, “[n]ot all injunctions that

may incidentally affect expression . . . are prior restraints.”

Madsen v. Women’s Health Ctr., Inc., 512 U.S. 753, 763 n.2

(1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). Consistent with

Madsen, we have held that a statute permitting injunctions

6 Consistent with the parties’ briefing, and because no injunction has yet

been imposed against CNN, we construe CNN’s free speech argument as

an as-applied constitutional challenge to the DPA.

7 CNN also argues that a captioning requirement would compel it to

speak by forcing it to report news content or express certain views. This

is not so. A captioning requirement would simply require CNN to express

the same speech it already expresses to hearing visitors of CNN.com. See

MPAA, 309 F.3d at 803 (distinguishing captioning from regulations that

were “related to a program’s content” and noting that unlike creative

works, “closed captioning is a straight translation of dialogue into text”).

 Case: 12-15807, 02/05/2014, ID: 8966150, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 27 of 34
28 GREATER L.A. AGENCY ON DEAFNESS V. CNN

against speech is not per se unconstitutional and have further

clarified that “[c]ontent-neutral injunctions that do not bar all

avenues of expression are not treated as prior restraints.” 

Maldonado v. Morales, 556 F.3d 1037, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). 

The captioning requirement GLAD seeks under the DPA is a

content-neutral injunction that requires CNN to provide

closed captioning on videos posted to CNN.com. The

evidentiary record, construed in GLAD’s favor, shows that

there is at least minimal merit to GLAD’s contention that the

requested injunction neither prohibits nor forbids CNN’s

speech but instead endeavors to make that speech accessible

to hearing-impaired individuals. Therefore, for purposes of

our anti-SLAPP analysis, we reject CNN’s contention that

interpreting the DPA to require CNN to caption its news

videos would impose an unconstitutional prior restraint under

the First Amendment or California Constitution.8

b. Intermediate Scrutiny

Equally unavailing, at this preliminary stage of the

proceedings, is CNN’s alternative argument that construing

the DPA to require captioning impermissibly burdens its free

speech rights and fails under intermediate scrutiny. GLAD’s

evidence, which we accept as true in this anti-SLAPP appeal,

8 That the California Constitution’s guarantee of free speech is “more

definitive and inclusive than the First Amendment” does not alter our

conclusion that GLAD’s requested injunction is not a prior restraint on

speech under either provision. See Wilson v. Superior Court, 532 P.2d

116, 120 (Cal. 1975). California courts do not apply a broader definition

of “prior restraint” when interpreting the more inclusive free speech

provisions ofthe California Constitution. E.g., Hurvitz v. Hoefflin, 84Cal.

App. 4th 1232, 1241 & n.5 (2000) (noting broader scope of California

Constitution but applying definition of “prior restraint” adopted by the

Supreme Court in the First Amendment context).

 Case: 12-15807, 02/05/2014, ID: 8966150, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 28 of 34
GREATER L.A. AGENCY ON DEAFNESS V. CNN 29

shows that imposinga content-neutral captioning requirement

under the DPA would not burden “substantially more speech

than is necessary to further the government’s legitimate

interests.” E.g., Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781,

799 (1989). First, we note that the limited record establishes

that interpreting the DPA to permit a captioning requirement

as a remedy for alleged violations of that statutory regime

would advance California’s legitimate and substantial

interests in preventing discrimination and ensuring equal

access to the hearing-impaired. See Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees,

468 U.S. 609, 625 (1984) (“A State enjoys broad authority to

create rights of public access on behalf of its citizens.”);

Closed Captioning of Internet Protocol-Delivered Video

Programming, 77 Fed. Reg. at 19480 (noting that a closed

captioning requirement would further Congress’s goal of

better enabling hearing-impaired individuals to view online

video programming on equal terms). Taking the evidence in

GLAD’s favor, we conclude that the captioning requirement

GLAD seeks is narrowly tailored to further these interests by

ensuring that “the benefits and advantages offered by

CNN.com are fully and equally enjoyable to persons who are

deaf or have hearing loss in California.”

Although CNN presents expert testimony that a

captioning requirement could pose technical challenges,

cause delays in publishing news, substantially increase

CNN’s costs, and introduce inaccuracies into CNN’s news

content, GLAD has offered rebuttal evidence in the form of

expert testimony regarding the feasibility, relative accuracy,

and limited expense of the requested captioning requirement. 

Crediting GLAD’s evidence, as we must at the second step of

the anti-SLAPP analysis, we conclude that CNN has not

defeated as a matter of law GLAD’s claim that enforcement

of the DPA through a captioning requirement survives

 Case: 12-15807, 02/05/2014, ID: 8966150, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 29 of 34
30 GREATER L.A. AGENCY ON DEAFNESS V. CNN

intermediate scrutiny. See Closed Captioning of InternetProtocol-Delivered Video Programming, 77 Fed. Reg. at

19486 (“As an initial matter, closed captioning requirements

implicate the First Amendment onlymarginally at best.”); see

also Gottfried, 655 F.2d at 311 n.54 (rejecting, in dicta, First

Amendment challenge to captioning requirement for

television programming on ground that a “captioning

requirement would not significantly interfere with program

content”); Implementation of Video Description of Video

Programming, 15 FCC Rcd. at 15255 (“[T]he U.S. Court of

Appeals for the D.C. Circuit concluded nearly twenty years

ago that anyrequirement to provide [television] programming

with closed captioning would not violate the First

Amendment.”). Accordingly, GLAD’s state law claims have

at least the “minimal merit” necessary to survive CNN’s free

speech challenge at this juncture.

3. Dormant Commerce Clause

In a final attempt to identify a constitutional infirmity in

GLAD’s claims, CNN asserts that a captioning requirement

would impermissibly burden interstate commerce and violate

the dormant Commerce Clause. CNN’s dormant Commerce

Clause challenge fails to defeat GLAD’s DPA claims at this

stage of the litigation.

The Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution

empowers Congress to “regulate Commerce . . . among the

several States.” U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 3. “Courts have

long read a negative implication into the clause, termed the

‘dormant Commerce Clause,’ that prohibits states from

discriminating against interstate commerce.” Yakima Valley

Mem’l Hosp. v. Wash. State Dep’t of Health, 731 F.3d 843,

846 (9th Cir. 2013). The first step in our analysis is to

 Case: 12-15807, 02/05/2014, ID: 8966150, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 30 of 34
GREATER L.A. AGENCY ON DEAFNESS V. CNN 31

determine whether the DPA either discriminates against or

directly regulates interstate commerce. Brown–Forman

Distillers Corp. v. N.Y. State Liquor Auth., 476 U.S. 573, 579

(1986). CNN does not argue that the DPA—which applies

evenhandedly to in-state and out-of-state news

providers—discriminates against out-of-state entities.

Consequently, we focus our inquiryon CNN’s contention that

imposing a captioning requirement under the DPA directly

regulates commerce that takes place wholly outside of

California.9

a. Direct Regulation of Interstate Commerce

Direct regulation of interstate commerce “occurs when a

state law directly affects transactions that take place across

state lines or entirely outside of the state’s borders.” Valley

Bank of Nev. v. Plus Sys., Inc., 914 F.2d 1186, 1189–90 (9th

Cir. 1990) (internal quotation marks omitted). The dormant

Commerce Clause forbids a state from regulating commerce

“that takes place wholly outside of the State’s borders,

whether or not the commerce has effects within the State.” 

Healy v. Beer Inst., 491 U.S. 324, 336 (1989) (internal

quotation marks omitted). In determining whether the DPA

directly regulates interstate commerce, we focus our inquiry

on the “practical effect” of the statute. See id.; S.D. Myers,

Inc. v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 253 F.3d 461, 467 (9th Cir.

2001).

9 CNN also contends, without support, example, or evidence, that

applying the DPA could “potentially subject CNN to inconsistent

legislation from other states.” CNN’s contention is conclusory and

speculative.

 Case: 12-15807, 02/05/2014, ID: 8966150, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 31 of 34
32 GREATER L.A. AGENCY ON DEAFNESS V. CNN

Crediting the evidence submitted by GLAD, we conclude

that the DPA, which applies only to CNN’s videos as they are

accessed by California viewers, does not have the practical

effect of directly regulating conduct wholly outside of

California. Even though CNN.com is a single website, the

record before us shows that CNN could enable a captioning

option for California visitors to its site, leave the remainder

unchanged, and thereby avoid the potential for extraterritorial

application of the DPA. See Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind v.

Target Corp., 452 F. Supp. 2d 946, 961 (N.D. Cal. 2006)

(“NFB”) (rejecting Target’s dormant Commerce Clause

challenge to DPA and Unruh Act on ground that “Target

could choose to make a California-specific website” and

stating that even if Target changed “its entire website in order

to comply with California law, this does not mean that

California is regulating out-of-state conduct”). Although

CNN asserts that creating a California-specific version of its

site would not be “feasible,” CNN’s evidence does not defeat

GLAD’s claim to the contrary. 

b. Pike Balancing

Our inquiry, however, does not end there. We must next

subject the imposition of a captioning requirement to the

balancing test set forth in Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc.,

397 U.S. 137 (1970) and ask whether the “burden imposed on

[interstate] commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the

putative local benefits.” Id. at 142. Where, as here, “a

legitimate local purpose is found, then the question becomes

one of degree. And the extent of the burden that will be

tolerated will of course depend on the nature of the local

interest involved . . . .” Id. Applying this test at this stage of

the litigation and accepting as true GLAD’s evidence, we

 Case: 12-15807, 02/05/2014, ID: 8966150, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 32 of 34
GREATER L.A. AGENCY ON DEAFNESS V. CNN 33

determine that any burden imposed by the DPA is not clearly

excessive in relation to California’s putative local benefits. 

California has a legitimate interest in providing hearingimpaired citizens equal access to online news videos and

protecting its citizens from disparate discriminatory impact. 

Cf. Roberts, 468 U.S. at 625. These putative benefits are

significant and are not minimized bythe FCC’s limited online

captioning regulations, which do not cover much of the news

videos displayed on CNN.com. GLAD has presented

sufficient evidence to defeat CNN’s claim that the burdens

the DPA may impose are clearly excessive in relation to these

significant benefits. In fact, CNN already serves different

versions of its home page depending on the visitor’s country,

see www.cnn.com (last visited Jan. 8, 2014), and provides no

explanation for why it could not do the same for California

residents. We therefore conclude, at this preliminary stage in

the proceedings, that GLAD’s claims have the minimal merit

necessary to withstand CNN’s dormant Commerce Clause

challenge.

C. DPA Claims: Certification to California Supreme

Court

Having disposed of the Unruh Act claims and addressed

CNN’s constitutional challenges, we are left with the merits

of GLAD’s DPA claims. CNN argues that GLAD cannot

prove a probability of success on the merits of its DPA claims

because the DPA does not apply to non-physical places like

CNN.com, which is a virtual location on the Internet. For the

reasons articulated in our concurrently filed certification

order, we reserve decision on this question and respectfully

request that the California Supreme Court answer this

important and unresolved issue of state law. We stay the

 Case: 12-15807, 02/05/2014, ID: 8966150, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 33 of 34
34 GREATER L.A. AGENCY ON DEAFNESS V. CNN

issuance of the mandate, withdraw this case from submission

pending further order of this court, and retain jurisdiction

over further proceedings.10

VACATED.

10 With regard to the issues decided in this opinion, the normal rules

governing petitions for rehearing and petitions for rehearing en banc shall

apply.

 Case: 12-15807, 02/05/2014, ID: 8966150, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 34 of 34