## Facts

- Ashleigh Brenton used the dietary supplement “Metabolife 356” as directed for several months.
- Brenton alleged the product’s ingredients, including ephedrine, caused her to suffer a psychotic breakdown in June 2000.
- Brenton sued Metabolife International, Inc. asserting products liability, negligence, warranty, fraud, and statutory claims for unfair competition and false advertising under Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 and 17500.
- The complaint included allegations about the product’s labeling, marketing, and alleged misbranding and false advertising.
- Metabolife filed a special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 (anti-SLAPP), asserting the claims arose from constitutionally protected commercial speech.
- The trial court denied the anti-SLAPP motion, and Metabolife appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Brenton’s claims “arose from” protected petitioning or speech activity under Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 because they referenced Metabolife’s advertising and labeling.
2. Whether a personal-injury/products-liability action alleging physical harm from a product can be treated as an anti-SLAPP case based on incidental allegations about commercial speech.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the order denying Metabolife’s anti-SLAPP motion.
- Metabolife did not meet its initial burden to show the causes of action arose from protected activity within § 425.16.
- Because the threshold showing was not made, the court did not reach the second step (plaintiff’s probability of prevailing).

## Legal Principles

- Anti-SLAPP analysis is a two-step process: (1) defendant must show the challenged claims arise from protected activity under § 425.16; (2) only then does the burden shift to the plaintiff to show a probability of success on the merits.
- Courts determine whether a claim arises from protected activity by examining the claim’s “principal thrust or gravamen,” not isolated references to speech or petitioning.
- References to advertising or labeling do not trigger § 425.16 where the core alleged wrong is physical injury from a defective product and the speech allegations are incidental or evidentiary.
- Commercial speech may receive constitutional protection, but § 425.16 applies only when the plaintiff’s claim is based on that protected speech as the alleged wrongful act.

## Conclusion

The court treated the lawsuit as a products-liability and personal-injury dispute centered on alleged harm from a defective supplement, not an effort to chill protected speech, and therefore held California’s anti-SLAPP statute did not apply.


Brenton v. Metabolife Int’l, Inc., 10 Cal. Rptr. 3d 702 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)