## Facts

- Christine Anthony, a deaf or hard-of-hearing consumer, filed a putative class action on behalf of herself and similarly situated hearing-impaired consumers.
- Anthony sued Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc. and other major studios and distributors, alleging they sold and marketed audiovisual works (including DVDs and similar products) as “closed captioned” or “subtitled for the hearing impaired.”
- The complaint alleged that, although the works included captions for spoken dialogue, the captioning often failed to include song lyrics and certain other audio information.
- According to Anthony, omitted lyrics could matter to understanding plot, mood, or theme, and the omissions reduced accessibility for hearing-impaired viewers.
- The complaint asserted multiple claims, including consumer-protection and misrepresentation-based theories premised on allegedly misleading packaging and advertising, as well as a claim that the studios intentionally discriminated against hearing-impaired consumers by not captioning lyrics.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and also filed a special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16.
- Although the court dismissed the complaint, it still addressed the anti-SLAPP motion because a successful anti-SLAPP motion can support an award of attorney’s fees to the prevailing defendants.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged intentional discrimination against hearing-impaired consumers based on the studios’ alleged failure to caption song lyrics where captioning was provided and available on the same terms to all purchasers.
2. Whether the packaging and advertising descriptions “closed captioned” or “subtitled for the hearing impaired” were plausibly alleged to be false or misleading when lyrics were not consistently captioned.
3. Whether the challenged labeling and advertising arose from protected activity under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (rather than being exempt commercial speech) and, if so, whether plaintiff showed a probability of prevailing.

## Decision

- The court granted defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.
- On the intentional-discrimination theory, the court found the pleadings insufficient because the captions were “equally available to all consumers,” which did not support an inference that defendants targeted hearing-impaired consumers for worse treatment.
- On the misrepresentation and consumer-protection theories, the court concluded the complaint did not adequately plead an actionable false statement; the allegations did not plausibly establish that “closed captioned” or “subtitled for the hearing impaired,” without more, promised that every song lyric would be transcribed.
- The court granted defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion, rejecting plaintiff’s argument that the packaging and advertising constituted unprotected commercial speech outside § 425.16.
- Because defendants prevailed on the anti-SLAPP motion and plaintiff did not show a probability of success on the merits, the complaint was stricken and the defendants became eligible to seek attorney’s fees and costs under § 425.16.

## Legal Principles

- To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must plead enough factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief; conclusory allegations of discrimination or deception are not enough.
- A claim framed as intentional discrimination generally requires plausible allegations of intent or unequal treatment; providing the same captioning feature to all purchasers, even if allegedly incomplete, does not by itself show intentional discrimination against a protected group.
- Consumer-fraud and misrepresentation theories require identification of a concrete representation that is plausibly false or likely to mislead a reasonable consumer in context; generalized expectations about what “captioned” should include may be insufficient without specific, objectively misleading statements.
- California’s anti-SLAPP statute uses a two-step analysis: (1) the defendant must show the claim arises from protected speech or petitioning activity; (2) the plaintiff must show a probability of prevailing.
- Speech related to the distribution and public communication of widely disseminated expressive works may fall within anti-SLAPP protection even if it has a sales-related component; when the plaintiff cannot show a viable claim, the anti-SLAPP motion may be granted.
- A prevailing defendant on an anti-SLAPP motion is generally entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs.

## Conclusion

In *Anthony v. Buena Vista Home Entertainment Inc.*, the court dismissed a hearing-impaired consumer class action challenging “closed captioned” and “subtitled for the hearing impaired” labels based on alleged omission of song lyrics, holding the pleadings did not plausibly show intentional discrimination or actionable deception, and it also granted defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion because the challenged communications were protected activity and plaintiff failed to show a probability of prevailing, permitting defendants to pursue statutory fees.


Anthony v. Buena Vista Home Entertainment Inc., 2016 WL 6836950 (2016)