CA Anti-SLAPP Law Applies to #MeToo Instagram Post–Nelson v. Bridgers
Phoebe Bridgers. Photo from Raph_PH, CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons
This case involves three people:
- Chris Nelson, “a well-established music industry entrepreneur.”
- Emily Bannon, an alleged former girlfriend and victim of Nelson’s behavior.
- Phoebe Bridgers (photo on the right), “a singer, songwriter, and guitarist” with a large Instagram audience. Nelson claims Bridgers participated in 3-ways with him and Bannon, and that Bridgers and Bannon maintained their relationship after Nelson and Bannon broke up.
“In October 2020, Bannon made a lengthy post to Instagram summarizing negative experiences of persons doing business with Nelson and of his romantic partners, and recounting her own bad experiences with him.”
Two days later, Bridgers made an Instagram post affirming Bannon’s post about Nelson’s behavior, adding “I witnessed and can personally verify much of the abuse (grooming, stealing, violence) perpetuated by Chris Nelson.”
Nelson separately sued Bannon and Bridgers for defamation and related claims. (He also brought a similar but unrelated lawsuit against Noel Wells). Both Bannon and Bridgers filed anti-SLAPP motions to strike. In the Bannon case, the appeals court held that Bannon’s post could qualify for anti-SLAPP protection and remanded to explore if Nelson met his pleading burdens.
In Bridgers’ case, on appeal, Nelson argued that Bridgers’ post was not a matter of public concern. The court easily disagrees. First, Bridgers’ “public Instagram account constitutes a ‘public forum'” (cite to Jackson v. Mayweather). Second, the post implicated matters of public interest:
The post related to public concerns, especially prevalent in light of the #MeToo movement, about men using their power to abuse women. It also provided consumer protection information about Nelson, who operated a substantial business selling musical instruments and recording equipment, as well as a recording studio. [Later, the court says “The information provided by Bridgers affected the large number of people who might consider doing business with Nelson.”] Lastly, it furthered public discourse by adding to an ongoing discussion summarized in Bannon’s post about Nelson’s business practices and alleged abuse of young females…When public allegations of abuse are corroborated, it serves not only to further the discussion of the specific claims at issue, but also to embolden others who are being victimized to come forward [cite to Elliott v. Donegan].
Nelson argued that Bridgers had a bad motivation for speaking up because her alleged romantic involvement with Bannon put her on Team Emily against Team Nelson. The court says the test for public interest is measured objectively, not subjectively, and was satisfied here.
The trial court awarded Bridgers nearly a half-million in attorneys’ fees (she had asked for nearly $700k). I’m not sure how the case generated that much work just to reach an anti-SLAPP motion to strike, but the appeals court affirms that Nelson has to pay it. Thus, this case becomes a costly education in defamation and anti-SLAPP laws.
Case Citation: Nelson v. Bridgers, 2024 WL 4614704 (Cal. App. Ct. Oct. 30, 2024)
Selected Posts on #MeToo