In Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., a manufacturer brought suit against an attorney who ran an advertisement regarding possible claims against the manufacturer’s products and the trial court granted counsel’s anti-SLAPP motion to strike. The California Supreme Court has now affirmed the judgment, holding that: 1) the plaintiff has the burden of proof in demonstrating the application of the commercial speech exception found in C.C.P. § 425.17(c) to anti-SLAPP motions and 2) the subject advertisement by counsel regarding potential claims against specified product manufacturers was not a statement by counsel “consisting of representations of fact about that person’s [i.e., counsel’s] or a business competitor’s business operations, goods, or services.” As such, the advertisement did not fall within the commercial speech exception, and the manufacturer’s action was subject to an anti-SLAPP motion to strike. For more information regarding Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., see the Civil Procedure/Evidence/Discovery update.


The Supreme Court specified the elements for applying the commercial speech exception as follows: "[w]e interpret section 425.17(c) to exempt from the anti-SLAPP law a cause of action arising from commercial speech when

  • (1) the cause of action is against a person primarily engaged in the business of selling or leasing goods or services;
  • (2) the cause of action arises from a statement or conduct by that person consisting of representations of fact about that person’s or a business competitor’s business operations, goods, or services;
  • (3) the statement or conduct was made either for the purpose of obtaining approval for, promoting, or securing sales or leases of, or commercial transactions in, the person’s goods or services or in the course of delivering the person’s goods or services; and
  • (4) the intended audience for the statement or conduct meets the definition set forth in section 425.17(c)(2).