LOS ANGELES (Legal Newsline) - A self-described “celebrity jeweler” who brought the wrath of his Internet followers down on a cake shop he accused of botching his son’s birthday cake can’t hide behind a law designed to protect statements made in the public interest, a California appeals court has ruled.
In a series of Instagram posts, Ben “the Baller” Yang said Big Sugar put “prescription pills” on his 7-year-old son’s cake and mistreated his wife Nicolette when she called to complain. The cake, made to a science-themed design Nicolette submitted to Big Sugar, featured a beaker with pill-like objects spilling out of it.
“Anyone in their even high mind would know that you should NEVER EVER PUT DRUGS ON A 7 year old kids bday cake!” Yang said in one post to his claimed 1.5 million followers. He also criticized the cake shop on his podcast, after which Big Sugar says it received threatening calls and people writing to say they would never patronize the shop.
Big Sugar sued Yang for libel and slander and Yang responded by claiming protection under California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, commonly known as an anti-SLAPP law (for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). The law protects statements made in a “public forum in connection with an issue of public interest.” Yang said his criticism of Big Sugar drew attention to “candy confusion,” a celebrity’s day-to-day life and a famous bakery that had designed a cake that was risky for children.
Big Sugar opposed the motion, saying Yang’s comments involved a private dispute and Yang’s desire to “cancel” Big Sugar. The trial court rejected Yang’s motion, finding none of the statements involved the public interest and even if they were protected, Big Sugar would likely still win.
In a Sept. 3 decision, justices in California’s Second Appellate District agreed.
“This case is about a birthday cake,” Justice John Wiley wrote in a terse opinion upholding the trial court’s decision. The California legislature used the term “public interest,” “not to pose a puzzler but to solve a social problem” of lawsuits designed to shut down public debate, the judge wrote. Subsequent court rulings have fleshed out the meaning of public interest, he said, and while it often involves direct criticism of specific businesses the anti-SLAPP law generally protects comments linked to a larger social issue.
“Agile thinkers always can create some kind of link between a statement and an issue of public concern,” the appeals court ruled. But “Yang’s statements did not seek public discussion of anything. They aimed to whip up a crowd for vengeful retribution.”
Yang argued he never said the cake had actual prescription pharmaceuticals on it (they were sugar balls in various pill-like shapes made in response to Yang's family's desire for a science-gone-mad party), but the court said that didn’t matter because his statements weren’t of public interest in the first place. Whether Yang is an actual celebrity doesn’t matter either, the court said.
“Even people of great renown are capable of banalities,” the court said.
Yang also cited the California Supreme Court’s grant of appellate review of Serova v. Sony Music, in which Sony won anti-SLAPP protection against its denials a posthumous Michael Jackson album contained three tracks featuring a soundalike singer’s voice.
That case hinges upon whether Sony’s denials were commercial speech about an issue of public interest, the court ruled. “Despite its name, Big Sugar is a small business” with only two locations, the court said, so Yang’s complaints about how a single birthday cake turned out doesn’t have wider implications of interest to the public.