Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(e). The district court
determined that Makaeff’s statements fell into the fourth
category, conduct in connection “with a public issue or an
issue of public interest,” because the statements provided
“consumer protection information.”
Under California law, statements warning consumers of
fraudulent or deceptive business practices constitute a topic
of widespread public interest, so long as they are provided in
the context of information helpful to consumers. For
instance, in Wilbanks v. Wolk, 17 Cal. Rptr. 3d 497 (Ct. App.
2004), Gloria Wolk, a consumer advocate and expert on
viatical settlements (arrangements inwhich dying persons sell
their life insurance policies to investors to help pay for
medical care and other expenses), posted negative comments
on her website about a certain broker of such settlements. Id.
at 499, 507. The California Court of Appeal held that the
statements were protected activity under the anti-SLAPP
statute because they were “consumer protection information.” Id. at 507. It reasoned:
The statements made by [the defendant] were
not simply a report of one broker’s business
practices, of interest only to that broker and to
those who had been affected by those
practices. [The defendant’s] statements were
a warning not to use plaintiffs’ services. In
the context of information ostensibly provided to aid consumers choosing among brokers, the
statements, therefore, were directly connected
to an issue of public concern.