Case Summary

4700 REVIEW GRANTED A recent amendment to the SLAPP statute exempting from its coverage actions arising from statements made by the seller of a product or service to potential customers regarding a competitor could apply to an action in which it is alleged that an attorney solicited another attorney's clients, however an action arising from an advertisement published by an attorney advising owners of decks built with screws manufactured by plaintiff that they might have certain rights to compensation, repair, or replacement of the deck and suggesting they call to have an attorney investigate whether they have potential claims was not made to competitors of the attorney, and so is not exempt from application of the SLAPP statute; since the language of the advertisement was couched in terms of possibility and prediction, it was not a provably false assertion of fact and could not lead to liability for defamation, Trade Libel, False Advertising, or violation of the Unfair Competition Law; the fact that the manufacturer might not be found liable in a product liability action brought on a defective product theory is not sufficient to make false a suggestion that the product was defective.

SIMPSON STRONG-TIE v GORE (Galvanized Screws) 162 CA4 737 [See: CCP 425.16, 425.17; CivC 45; B&PC 17200 etseq; Taheri v Evans 160 CA4 482, P/AT 5/08; Gregory v McDonnell 17 C3 596, Smith v Maldonado 72 CA4 637, T/AT 7/99; Melaleuca v Clark 66 CA4 1344, T/AT 11/98]