Opinion ID: 858430
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: any other conduct in furtherance of the

Text: exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(e). The district court determined that Makaeff’s statements fell into the fourth category, conduct in connection “with a public issue or an issue of public interest,” because the statements provided “consumer protection information.” Under California law, statements warning consumers of fraudulent or deceptive business practices constitute a topic of widespread public interest, so long as they are provided in the context of information helpful to consumers. For instance, in Wilbanks v. Wolk, 17 Cal. Rptr. 3d 497 (Ct. App. 2004), Gloria Wolk, a consumer advocate and expert on viatical settlements (arrangements in which dying persons sell their life insurance policies to investors to help pay for medical care and other expenses), posted negative comments on her website about a certain broker of such settlements. Id. at 499, 507. The California Court of Appeal held that the statements were protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute because they were “consumer protection information.” Id. at 507. It reasoned: The statements made by [the defendant] were not simply a report of one broker’s business practices, of interest only to that broker and to those who had been affected by those practices. [The defendant’s] statements were a warning not to use plaintiffs’ services. In the context of information ostensibly provided 14 MAKAEFF V . TRUMP UNIVERSITY to aid consumers choosing among brokers, the statements, therefore, were directly connected to an issue of public concern. Id. at 507–08. Similarly, in Paradise Hills Associates v. Procel, 1 Cal. Rptr. 2d 514 (Ct. App. 1991), the California Court of Appeal held that a disgruntled buyer’s statements made against a seller were protected by the First Amendment. Id. at 523. There, a homeowner embroiled in a dispute with a residential developer posted signs on her house, spoke with reporters, distributed leaflets, and spoke to prospective customers to urge them not to buy houses from the developer. Id. at 516. The developer sued, arguing that the homeowner’s statements were not protected by the First Amendment because they “relate solely to her private concerns.” Id. at 522. Rejecting that argument, the court reasoned that consumers have an “‘interest in matters which affect their roles as consumers.’” Id. (quoting Concerned Consumers League v. O’Neill, 371 F. Supp. 644, 648 (E.D. Wis. 1974)). The court therefore held that the First Amendment protected the homeowner’s statements. Id. at 523. Here, according to Trump University’s defamation counterclaim, Makaeff published statements to “unknown third parties and the general public on the Internet.”5 Makaeff 5 Trump University’s appellate briefing omits any mention of Makaeff’s Internet postings, limiting its arguments to the statements found in Makaeff’s letters. However, California’s anti-SLAPP statute instructs the court to base its determination on the “pleadings” and “affidavits” of the parties. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(b)(2). Trump University’s pleadings and the declarations of Makaeff and Trump University president Michael Sexton reference the Internet postings. Moreover, the district MAKAEFF V . TRUMP UNIVERSITY 15 claims she posted these statements “to alert other consumers of my opinions and experience with Trump University,” and to “inform other consumers of my opinion that Trump University did not deliver what it promised.” Her explanation is plausible. Makaeff’s letter to her bank suggests that she spoke out with the goal of stopping Trump University from defrauding other consumers: I am contacting the Better Business Bureau (BBB), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Bureau of Consumer Protection and the FDIC as well as posting the facts of my highly negative experience on a wide variety of Internet sites to ensure that this organization at some point is stopped from defrauding others with its predatory behavior. I am also contacting the media to give them a statement of facts so that they can expose this scam and am willing to go to whatever lengths necessary to obtain my money back including taking legal action at the state and federal levels for this crime that has been committed to [sic] thousands of students nationwide who have been preyed on and victimized as I know I am one of many. Makaeff’s posts on anonymous third-party websites could not have resolved her private dispute with Trump University. We therefore conclude that the postings constituted consumer court referenced those Internet postings in the order denying Makaeff’s motion. We are therefore satisfied that Trump University’s counterclaim “aris[es],” at least in part, from Makaeff’s Internet postings to anonymous third parties. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(b)(1). 16 MAKAEFF V . TRUMP UNIVERSITY protection information because they were intended as “a warning not to use plaintiffs’ services” and came in the context of information that was “provided to aid consumers.”6 Wilbanks, 17 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 508. Moreover, we have doubts about Trump University’s claim that Makaeff wrote her letters to her bank and the Better Business Bureau with purely private motives. The Better Business Bureau identifies its mission as advancing trust in the marketplace by offering objective and unbiased information about businesses to consumers.7 Therefore, the statements Makaeff made in her letter to the Bureau, even if made in the context of a request that it intercede in her dispute with Trump University, are not so easily separated from “information . . . provided to aid consumers.” Id. Because at least some of Makaeff’s statements were made with the intent to warn consumers about the educational experience at Trump University, we agree with the district court that Trump University’s counterclaim arises from an act protected under the anti-SLAPP statute.