A California state appeals court has affirmed a ruling that a technology company, which was hired by an auto racing company to build a Website, is protected by the First Amendment when it created a mirror Website, using a fictitious name, that parodied its client.
Besides being protected by the U.S. Constitution, the defendant was also protected because the action was deemed to be a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16).
By way of background, TRG Motorsports, LLC hired Media Barons, a marketing services and technical support company that works extensively with the auto racing industry, to do some work. Media Barons “surreptitiously created a publicly accessible website that mocked appellants through the use of thinly disguised pseudonyms and outrageous content. After appellants discovered who created the website, they sued the individual and the company for libel,” wrote the appeals court.
TRG “owns and operates race cars which compete at the highest and most competitive levels of racing. (It) owns and operates Porsche sports cars . . . and is one of the only organizations to win both the 24 Hours of Daytona and 24 Hours of LeMans automobile races, which are among the most prestigious sports car races in the world.”
Individual plaintiff Kevin Buckler, the CEO of TRG, also owns co-plaintiff Adobe Road, which produces California wines and operates a vineyard and tasting house in the Sonoma Valley.
The plaintiffs alleged in May of 2011 that Buckler became aware of a Website, Facebook page, and Twitter account for an entity called ‘generic race team (GRT)’. The Website closely resembled Racers Group’s own site. The logo “GRT,” along the top of the website’s pages, was almost identical in design to Racers Group’s own “TRG” logo. The website contained numerous pages of what looked to be articles, information, and press releases regarding the GRT “team” and a winery called “Terra Cotta Path” (instead of Adobe Road). The website stated that the “owner” of GRT and Terra Cotta Path was a man named “Devin Fuckler.” The appeals court wrote that this was “an obvious play on the name Kevin Buckler. A picture of ‘Fuckler’ on the website showed him to have a ridiculous 1980’s-era mullet haircut and a grossly enlarged forehead.”
The website further claimed that GRT was founded “by team owner Devin Fuckler, who has managed great success in spite of his little person status. The team is founded on equal parts passion and his father’s trust fund.”
After he learned that Media Barons created the Website, Buckler sued. The defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion, arguing that the website and related materials were statements made in a public forum concerning an issue of public interest, and that the plaintiffs’ libel claims were non-actionable because they targeted a work of parody.
The defendants also presented evidence that the TRG Group was a household name in the racing world.
The plaintiffs meanwhile “argued that the website was defamatory because it impliedly asserted that Buckler is incompetent and unethical and that the companies he owns are poorly run.”
The trial court issued its ruling granting the anti-SLAPP motion in September 2012. The court found that the issue of whether Buckler is capable of running prominent racing teams is a matter of public interest, and that appellants are “internationally known figures in the racing community.” The court further found that the website was “clearly a joke, parody, and/or satire,” and that no reasonable reader would interpret the statements contained on the Website as stating actual facts.
The appeals court wrote that the defendants must meet two requirements for the appeals court to affirm — “the challenged cause of action is one arising from protected activity.” (Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53, 67.) And “if the lawsuit does arise from protected activity, the plaintiff must establish a reasonable probability that he or she will prevail on the merits of the claims.” (§ 425.16, subd. (b)(1); City of Cotati v. Cashman (2002) 29 Cal.4th 69, 76; Zamos v. Stroud (2004) 32 Cal.4th 958, 965.)
On the first requirement, “the Website parodied appellants’ organization and promotional style,” wrote the appeals court. “The evidence shows that (the plaintiffs) are all prominent members of the organization, and the organization is well known in the auto racing world. (The defendants) therefore made a prima facie showing that the Website was a public forum and was made in connection with an issue of public interest.”
On the second requirement, the appeals court wrote that it “was mean-spirited, offensive, and stupid. But it did not provide grounds for a legitimate libel claim. … Since the average viewer would have recognized that the website was nothing more than a parody, it was not actionable as libel.”
TRG Motorsports, LLC, et al., v. The Media Barons, LLC, et al., Ct. App. Calif., 2d App. Dist., Div. Two; B244937, 2013 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 7005; 9/30/13
Attorneys of Record: (for Plaintiffs and Appellants) Eagan Avenatti and Michael J. Avenatti. (for Defendants and Respondents) Grodsky & Olecki, Allen B. Grodsky, Zachary Rothenberg.
