Anti-SLAPP Law Protects Kardashian Sisters After They Trashed Debit Card Business Partner

from the free-speech-for-all dept

Thu, Jun 16th 2011 6:13am — Mike Masnick

The Kardashian sisters, who are among the current crop of celebrities who appear to be famous for being famous, got a lot of extra (negative) attention last fall when the press started reporting on the ridiculous fees that were found on "The Kardashian Kard," a new debit card that the women had put their name on, and for which they got a cut of any profits. As the negative publicity piled on, the Kardashians pulled out of the deal and shut down the card. The company behind the actual card (Revenue Resource Group) then sued the Kardashians, claiming breach of contract and that the Kardashians themselves were responsible for $75 million in damages, and the destruction of the entire company. Of course, it seems worth pointing out that only 250 people actually got the card in the time it was available...

While this might sound like a basic breach of contract lawsuit, apparently the Kardashians' lawyers successfully turned it into a free speech issue, and were able to use California's excellent anti-SLAPP law to not just get the lawsuit dismissed, but to put Revenue Resource Group on the hook for attorneys' fees as well:

�We do not have a mere breach of contract action here, seeking recovery from the Kardashians of the contract damages for their breach of same,� [Judge Jeffrey] Hamilton writes in an 8-page order... �Instead, we have an attempt to also charge the defendants with loss of all other business unrelated to them, specifically tied to defendants� exercise of free speech.�

The judge then finds that the credit card company likely can�t prove that the Kardashians ruined its business. �Plaintiff alleges that is (sic) was the publicity that killed off its business and ran off other potential celebrity clients,� the judgment states. �But it was not merely the Kardashian termination letter that did it � it was the onslaught of negative coverage before and after their statement about the fees and charges associated with the card. In other words, the product�s features themselves caused the problem once they became clearer to the public.�

As a fan of anti-SLAPP laws, this is an interesting ruling for a variety of reasons. It makes me wonder if we'll see more clashes between contract claims and First Amendment rights...

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: anti-slapp, debit cards, free speech, kardashians

9 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

weneedhelp (profile), 16 Jun 2011 @ 9:22am

See when you are famous for having a big ass and boobs, a slimy lair can get you off. (Eh stop it) But if you are a blog or just a citizen that made comments on a blog you are screwed. Appears to me to be abuse of anti-slapp by some 2-bit whores.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2011 @ 9:54am

It would seem that the anti-slapp laws are being applied a little too broadly. What was said about the product in public shouldn't be protected just because they are famous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2011 @ 10:12am
  
  Re:
  Except that they weren't the first to say it in public. Seems that would make a big difference.
  
  On the flip side, it seems they didn't bother to actually understand what the hell they were pasting their names onto either. They failed in that responsibility unless they were outright lied to by the debit card company.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 16 Jun 2011 @ 10:00am

Don't even know enough about them to know why they are famous. Some things may not be worth the ACSII characters on the web. This may well be one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DH's Love Child (profile), 16 Jun 2011 @ 12:19pm
  
  Re:
  Trust me, the less you know about them, the happier you will be.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
hautedawg, 16 Jun 2011 @ 4:48pm

Kim and company
They are all sluts, whores and worthless. They are famous because their father represented OJ, or was one of the attorneys in that fiasco, their step father is Bruce Jenner (looking old) and they are living on their "fame".

They have signed on for many things, famous for being famous. If they signed the contract, they should be bound to it. Of course the debit card company sounds pretty shady, so maybe there is a whore battle going on.

I just don't like them, don't have any respect for people sucking money off the teat of the trailer parks of America from people who wish they were as "glamorous" as the Kardisian whores.

My opinioin is free speech here!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
James J. Moneer, Esq., 16 Jun 2011 @ 7:45pm

CA anti-SLAPP laws
Please send me a citation to the case. Was it a published or an unpublished decision? It sounds like it is a section 425.16, subd. (e)(4) public issue SLAPP. Almost any cause of action predicated on speech or writing and a celebrity has recently been found by the Courts of Appeal to invoke the anti-SLAPP protections against meritless civil suits based on their public issue speech or communication to any government agency.

I am a panelist giving anti-SLAPP seminars for Lawyers at Rutter Group, Pincus and others. I have been teaching anti-SLAPP law at University of San Diego School of law since 2001 and have been specializing in SLAPP cases for both sides since 1994. I have argued a SLAPP cases before the California Supreme Court. See www.slapplaw.com

James J. Moneer, Esq.
www.slapplaw.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Jun 2011 @ 8:22pm

I don't know them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
model sendal terbaru, 7 Jan 2017 @ 10:37pm

The information and the detail were just perfect. I think that your perspective is deep, it’s just well thought out and really fantastic to see someone who knows how to put these thoughts down so well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]