## Facts

- A Los Angeles bakery (Big Sugar) accepted a custom birthday cake order for Ben Yang’s seven-year-old son based on a “mad science” theme image featuring a tipped beaker and pill-shaped decorations.
- The delivered cake included realistic-looking fondant “pills.” Yang and his wife believed the design was inappropriate for a child; the parties disputed whether the bakery was clearly told the child’s age.
- Yang complained to the bakery by phone; the bakery attempted to fix the problem by making and delivering a replacement cake.
- Shortly after the complaint call, Yang posted criticism of the bakery to approximately 1.5 million Instagram followers and later discussed the incident on a podcast.
- The bakery alleged Yang’s communications included threats to “destroy” the business and led to a surge of negative reviews and violent or death threats from some followers.
- The bakery asked Yang to correct or retract statements after notifying him of the threats; he refused.
- The bakery sued for libel, slander, and unfair competition (UCL). Yang filed an anti-SLAPP motion under Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16, asserting his speech addressed matters of public interest.

## Issues

1. Whether Yang’s social-media posts and podcast statements about a single cake-order dispute were acts “in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest” under Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16(e) such that the claims arose from protected activity.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the order denying Yang’s anti-SLAPP motion.
- Yang failed to satisfy step one of the anti-SLAPP analysis because his statements did not involve a public issue or issue of public interest.
- Because step one was not met, the court did not address whether the bakery showed a probability of prevailing on the merits.
- The bakery’s libel, slander, and UCL claims were permitted to proceed.

## Legal Principles

- Anti-SLAPP analysis proceeds in two steps: (1) the defendant must show the challenged claims arise from protected activity under § 425.16(e); (2) if shown, the plaintiff must demonstrate a probability of prevailing.
- Speech does not become an issue of public interest merely because it is broadcast to a large audience or generates public attention.
- In assessing “public interest,” courts consider whether the speech concerns: (1) a person or entity in the public eye (in the relevant sense), (2) conduct that could directly affect a large number of people beyond the participants, or (3) a topic of widespread public interest.
- A single, individualized consumer dispute, posted to air personal dissatisfaction, generally lacks the broader public-interest connection required by § 425.16(e), even if framed as consumer protection or safety commentary.
- A speaker’s notoriety, standing alone, does not transform routine personal transactions into matters of public concern for anti-SLAPP purposes.

## Conclusion

The court held that Yang’s highly publicized criticism of a bakery over one birthday cake order remained a private business dispute, not speech connected to a public issue within the anti-SLAPP statute, so the motion to strike was properly denied and the case could proceed on the merits.


Woodhill Ventures, LLC v. Yang, 68 Cal. App. 5th 624 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021)