## Facts

- Stacey E. Stillman applied to appear on the television program *Survivor* and signed a written confidentiality agreement barring disclosure of information concerning the show and its production.
- After being voted off the program, Stillman learned allegations that the executive producer had influenced other contestants to vote her off, implying illegal manipulation of the show’s outcome.
- Stillman discussed the allegations with a writer preparing a book about the program.
- Stillman filed a lawsuit against entities involved in the program’s production and distribution, asserting claims tied to alleged unlawful “rigging,” and publicized her allegations by distributing her complaint online and to the media.
- SEG, Inc. sued Stillman for breach of written contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, defamation, product disparagement, and injunctive relief.
- Stillman filed a special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16.

## Issues

1. Whether SEG’s contract and implied-covenant claims, based on Stillman’s lawsuit and related disclosures, arose from protected petitioning/free-speech activity and were subject to being stricken under § 425.16.
2. Whether public policy limits enforcement of a confidentiality agreement to prevent disclosures alleging illegal or otherwise wrongful conduct in connection with a televised competition.
3. Whether SEG made a prima facie showing sufficient to defeat the anti-SLAPP motion as to its defamation claim.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed striking SEG’s claims for breach of written contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under § 425.16.
- The court treated Stillman’s lawsuit and public statements about alleged manipulation of the program’s outcome as petitioning and free-speech activity connected to a matter of public interest.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed denial of the anti-SLAPP motion as to defamation, concluding SEG made a prima facie showing of a probability of prevailing.
- The case proceeded on the surviving defamation-related theory, with the contract-based claims remaining stricken.

## Legal Principles

- Under Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16, a defendant may strike claims arising from protected petitioning or speech on matters of public interest unless the plaintiff shows a probability of prevailing through a prima facie evidentiary showing.
- Contract claims premised on a defendant’s filing of a lawsuit and related public communications may be subject to anti-SLAPP scrutiny when the gravamen is protected petitioning/free speech.
- Confidentiality provisions are limited by public policy and are not enforceable to the extent they would bar reporting or litigating alleged illegal or wrongful conduct.
- Public-policy limits on enforcing confidentiality agreements do not bar defamation liability; a plaintiff may proceed if it presents evidence that the challenged statements are factual, provably false, and harmful.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal applied California’s anti-SLAPP statute to bar NDA-based contract claims aimed at Stillman’s lawsuit and public allegations of wrongdoing, while permitting SEG’s defamation claim to continue because SEG presented sufficient evidence of falsity and harm to show a probability of prevailing.


SEG, Inc. v. Stillman, No. B159701, 2003 WL 21197133 (Cal. Ct. App. May 22, 2003)