## Facts

- Shantel Jackson and Floyd Mayweather Jr. were in a long-term, highly publicized relationship that ended after repeated conflict and alleged abuse.
- After the final breakup, Mayweather made statements about Jackson on social media and in a radio interview.
- Following Jackson’s posting of a photo with another celebrity, Mayweather allegedly threatened to post nude photos of Jackson.
- Mayweather publicly stated the relationship ended because Jackson had an abortion, and he expressed disapproval of abortion.
- Mayweather posted a sonogram depicting twin fetuses and posted a medical report indicating Jackson’s pregnancy; tabloids republished the materials.
- In a radio interview, Mayweather commented on the abortion and claimed Jackson had undergone extensive cosmetic surgery.
- Jackson sued for public disclosure of private facts, false light, defamation, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
- Mayweather filed an anti-SLAPP motion under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16; the trial court denied the motion, and Mayweather appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Jackson’s challenged claims arose from Mayweather’s protected speech in a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(e)(3).
2. If so, whether Jackson showed a probability of prevailing on her claims for defamation, false light, and public disclosure of private facts based on (a) Mayweather’s statements and (b) his posting of the sonogram and medical report.
3. Whether emotional-distress claims could proceed to the extent they depended on actionable, nonprotected conduct or actionable speech.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held Mayweather met the first anti-SLAPP prong because the statements were made in public forums and concerned issues of public interest involving a celebrity relationship.
- The court reversed the denial of the anti-SLAPP motion as to Jackson’s defamation and false light claims.
- The court reversed the denial of the anti-SLAPP motion as to the public-disclosure claim insofar as it was based on Mayweather’s statements about the abortion and his cosmetic-surgery comments.
- The court affirmed the denial of the anti-SLAPP motion as to the public-disclosure claim based on posting the sonogram and medical report.
- The court allowed related emotional-distress theories to proceed only to the extent they were predicated on the surviving medical-records disclosure.

## Legal Principles

- Under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, courts apply a two-step test: (1) whether the claims arise from protected activity; and (2) whether the plaintiff shows a probability of prevailing with admissible evidence.
- Statements made on social media and in broadcast interviews may qualify as speech in a public forum for § 425.16(e)(3).
- Public-disclosure of private facts requires proof of (1) public disclosure, (2) of private facts, (3) highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (4) not of legitimate public concern.
- Even where a topic has public interest components, publication of detailed, identifiable medical documentation may be found highly offensive and lacking legitimate public concern, supporting liability for public disclosure of private facts.
- Defamation and false light require falsity; a statement that is substantially true is not actionable even if it contains minor inaccuracies.
- Emotional-distress claims premised on nonactionable speech fail with the underlying claims, but may proceed if tied to independently actionable disclosures.

## Conclusion

The court applied California’s anti-SLAPP framework to narrow the case: claims based on Mayweather’s statements about abortion and cosmetic surgery, including defamation and false light, were stricken, while Jackson’s privacy claim could proceed only for the posting of her sonogram and medical report, along with any dependent emotional-distress theories.


Jackson v. Mayweather, 10 Cal. App. 5th 1240 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017)