## Facts

- Jennifer Seelig worked in sales at a San Francisco radio station owned by Infinity Broadcasting Corporation and briefly appeared as a contestant on the nationally televised reality program *Who Wants to Marry a Multimillionaire*.
- Before the episode aired, KLLC on-air host Uzette Salazar learned that a contestant on the program worked in the same building and was the ex-wife of someone who also worked there.
- Salazar invited Seelig to appear on the radio show; Seelig declined, citing fear of ridicule and perceived contractual limits.
- After Seelig refused, Salazar and co-host Vincent “Crackhorn” Crackhorn discussed her on air without using her name but described her in a manner Seelig claimed made her readily identifiable to friends and coworkers.
- The hosts used derogatory epithets (including “big skank,” “chicken butt,” and “local loser”) and mocked her refusal to appear.
- Seelig alleged listeners recognized her, contacted her immediately, and the broadcast caused reputational and emotional harm.
- Seelig sued Infinity and individual defendants for, among other claims, slander per se, invasion of privacy, negligent hiring, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The trial court sustained demurrers to the slander and IIED claims but allowed other claims to proceed; it then denied defendants’ special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16).
- Defendants appealed the denial of the anti-SLAPP motion.

## Issues

1. Whether the on-air commentary about a contestant on a widely publicized reality television program was speech “in connection with an issue of public interest” under Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16, subdivisions (e)(3) and (e)(4).
2. Whether Seelig showed a probability of prevailing on her remaining claims sufficient to defeat the anti-SLAPP motion.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the order denying the special motion to strike.
- The broadcast qualified as protected activity because it concerned a participant in a widely viewed, publicly discussed televised event and thus related to an issue of public interest.
- Seelig failed to show a probability of prevailing because the challenged statements were nonactionable opinion and rhetorical hyperbole in the context of talk radio, rather than provably false assertions of fact.
- The court concluded Seelig’s privacy-based and derivative claims also failed because her participation in a nationally televised program substantially reduced any reasonable expectation of privacy and the broadcast did not disclose private, intimate facts.
- The case was remanded with directions to grant the anti-SLAPP motion and strike the remaining causes of action.

## Legal Principles

- Anti-SLAPP prong one is satisfied when speech concerns an issue of public interest; this category is construed broadly and can include commentary about participants in widely publicized entertainment programming.
- A plaintiff who voluntarily participates in a nationally broadcast, heavily covered event places herself in the public eye and becomes a legitimate subject of public commentary for anti-SLAPP purposes.
- Defamation liability requires an assertion of fact capable of being proved true or false; vulgar epithets, ridicule, and talk-radio invective are commonly treated as protected opinion or rhetorical hyperbole.
- Invasion of privacy claims generally require disclosure of private facts not already public; voluntary public exposure can diminish any reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the exposed matters.
- Under anti-SLAPP prong two, the plaintiff must present admissible evidence showing a probability of prevailing; failure to show actionable statements or a viable privacy theory requires striking the claims.

## Conclusion

The court held that talk-radio insults and mockery directed at an identifiable reality-TV contestant involved a matter of public interest and were protected expression, and because the plaintiff could not show actionable defamation or a viable privacy claim, the defendants were entitled to have the remaining causes of action stricken under California’s anti-SLAPP statute.


Seelig v. Infinity Broad. Corp., 97 Cal. App. 4th 798, 119 Cal. Rptr. 2d 108 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)