Woodhill Ventures, LLC v. Yang

68 Cal. App. 5th 624 (2021)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Woodhill Ventures, LLC v. Yang

California Court of Appeal
68 Cal. App. 5th 624 (2021)

  • Written by Liz Nakamura, JD

Facts

Ben Yang (defendant), a self-proclaimed internet celebrity, ordered a birthday cake for his seven-year-old son from Big Sugar Bakeshop (BSB) (plaintiff), a small business in Los Angeles. The reference photo provided showed a science-themed cake topped with a tipped-over beaker, brightly colored pill-shaped candies, and science-themed decorations. After BSB delivered the cake, Yang called BSB to complain that the pill decorations on the cake, which were made of edible icing, were too realistic for a child’s birthday cake. It was disputed whether Yang ever told BSB the cake was for a child. BSB attempted to resolve the issue by baking and delivering a replacement cake. However, minutes after Yang called BSB to complain, Yang began posting complaints about BSB to his approximately 1.5 million Instagram followers. Yang also aired his grievances on his podcast. Because of Yang’s publicized complaints, BSB received negative reviews and violent threats from Yang’s followers. BSB notified Yang about the threats and negative reviews and requested that Yang retract or correct his complaints. Yang refused. BSB then filed a defamation action against Yang, alleging that Yang had made libelous and slanderous false statements against BSB. Yang moved to strike BSB’s complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP statute as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), arguing that his complaints against BSB involved the public interest. Specifically, Yang alleged that his complaints involved the public interest, a requirement for invoking an anti-SLAPP statute, because (1) the complaints addressed candy confusion, which was the known risk that children could confuse pills with candy, (2) Yang’s daily life was of widespread interest because he was an internet celebrity, and (3) BSB was a nationally recognized bakery. BSB challenged, arguing that the anti-SLAPP statute was inapplicable because BSB’s action against Yang was a purely private dispute. The trial court agreed and denied Yang’s motion to strike. Yang appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Wiley, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership