Brenton v. Metabolife International, Inc.
California Court of Appeal
10 Cal. Rptr. 3d 702 (2004)
- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
Ashleigh Brenton (plaintiff) purchased and consumed Metabolife 356, a product manufactured and marketed by Metabolife International, Inc. (Metabolife) (defendant). Brenton suffered a psychotic breakdown that she claimed was caused by Metabolife’s product. Brenton sued Metabolife, alleging claims for product liability, negligence, and violations of Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 & 17500 for false advertising and product misbranding. Metabolife moved to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute. The anti-SLAPP statute protects Californians from unfounded, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs). Metabolife asserted that Brenton’s claims were based on Metabolife’s exercise of protected, commercial speech, making Brenton’s lawsuit an attempt to improperly chill Metabolife’s First Amendment right to engage in this commercial speech. The trial court denied the motion to strike. Metabolife appealed to the California Court of Appeal.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McDonald, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.