## Facts

- Tarla Makaeff, a former customer of Trump University, filed a putative class action alleging deceptive business practices and related claims.
- Trump University operated as a private, for-profit entity marketing real-estate education and “insider success secrets” associated with Donald Trump’s persona.
- Makaeff allegedly paid more than $34,000 for Trump University programs and later became dissatisfied.
- Trump University filed a counterclaim for defamation based on Makaeff’s critical statements to her bank, the Better Business Bureau, governmental agencies, and on internet message boards.
- Makaeff moved to strike the defamation counterclaim under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, arguing Trump University could not show a probability of prevailing because it had to meet the First Amendment “actual malice” standard.

## Issues

1. Whether Trump University was a public figure or limited-purpose public figure for purposes of First Amendment defamation standards.
2. Whether, given Trump University’s status, the district court erred at the anti-SLAPP stage by not requiring a prima facie showing of actual malice to support the defamation counterclaim.
3. Whether California’s anti-SLAPP procedure properly applies in federal court (raised in opinions addressing rehearing en banc, without altering the panel’s merits holding).

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit held Trump University was a limited public figure with respect to a controversy about the value and legitimacy of its educational and training services.
- Because Trump University was a limited public figure, it had to prove actual malice to prevail on its defamation claim.
- The court reversed the district court’s denial of the anti-SLAPP motion and remanded for application of the actual malice requirement in evaluating whether Trump University could show a probability of prevailing.
- Rehearing en banc was denied, leaving the panel’s holding in place.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff that is a limited-purpose public figure must satisfy the First Amendment “actual malice” standard to recover for defamation arising from the relevant public controversy.
- “Actual malice” requires proof that the defendant made the statement with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth.
- Extensive, targeted advertising and active self-promotion can make a commercial entity a limited public figure for controversies that arise from the subject of that promotion.
- In evaluating an anti-SLAPP motion, a court must apply the substantive defamation standards that govern the claim, including any heightened constitutional fault requirement tied to the plaintiff’s public-figure status.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit concluded that Trump University’s large-scale promotional campaign placed it in the role of a limited public figure regarding public debate over its offerings, requiring proof of actual malice on its defamation counterclaim; the denial of the anti-SLAPP motion was reversed and remanded for reconsideration under that standard.


Makaeff v. Trump Univ., LLC, 715 F.3d 254 (9th Cir. 2013)