By Andy Yang, Esq. — The Law Office of Andy Yang
California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16) was designed to protect free speech and public participation — not to give immunity for personal attacks after a private transaction.
Under California law, courts have repeatedly held that post-transaction or post-treatment complaints by a consumer, patient, or client — statements made after the business relationship has ended — typically do not qualify as speech “in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.”
In other words, a customer’s or patient’s online review or social-media post that merely expresses a private grievance about their personal experience is not automatically protected under the anti-SLAPP statute.
The Legal Standard Under Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16
Section 425.16(e)(3)–(4) protects statements:
- Made in a public forum, in connection with an issue of public interest; or
- Made in furtherance of free speech rights on a public issue or issue of public interest.
But not every comment posted online qualifies. Courts draw a line between:
- Statements contributing to public discussion on issues affecting many consumers (for example, product safety or public health), and
- Private disputes that arise from a specific transaction or professional service.
Key Case: Carver v. Bonds (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 328
In Carver v. Bonds, a physician sued Barry Bonds’s ex-wife for defamation after she allegedly made statements about his medical treatment of Bonds.
The Court of Appeal held that the statements were not protected under § 425.16, because they related to a private medical relationship and post-treatment care — not a matter of general public concern.
“That a physician provides medical services to a well-known athlete does not make every statement about the physician’s professional conduct a matter of public interest… statements relating to the doctor’s post-treatment care of a single patient are not protected under section 425.16.” (Carver, at p. 344.)
The court emphasized that public curiosity about a celebrity’s health does not transform a private grievance into a public issue.
Other Supporting Decisions
Weinberg v. Feisel (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1122
The court explained that a personal feud — even one aired in public — does not automatically involve a public issue. Speech must contribute to a broader public debate, not just recount a private disagreement.
Dyer v. Childress (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1273
Here, a film producer’s alleged defamation of another individual in a private dispute was held not to concern a public issue. The court clarified that the anti-SLAPP law is meant to prevent lawsuits targeting public participation, not ordinary defamation suits arising from private conflicts.
McGarry v. University of San Diego (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 97
Similarly, statements about a coach’s alleged misconduct after his employment ended were not protected — they addressed a private employment matter, not a broader social concern.
Applying These Principles
These cases illustrate a consistent theme:
When a consumer or patient complains about a professional after the transaction or treatment has ended, and the complaint concerns only that individual experience, it is not speech in connection with a public issue.
For example:
- A patient’s claim that their doctor “failed to follow up after surgery.”
- A customer’s post on Yelp accusing a small business of “unprofessional behavior” after a refund dispute.
Both are private matters — not public debates about healthcare quality or consumer safety.
Courts focus on whether the speech contributes to public discussion of issues affecting many people. A single grievance about a concluded transaction generally does not.
Why It Matters
In defamation cases, defendants often file anti-SLAPP motions to strike the complaint, arguing that their statements involve a matter of public interest.
But as the cases above show, not all criticism is protected.
When speech arises from a private, one-on-one dispute, especially after the transaction is over, it usually falls outside the scope of California’s anti-SLAPP law.
This distinction is critical for businesses and professionals — from doctors and lawyers to small-business owners — who face unfair or defamatory online posts that masquerade as “public concern.”
Key Takeaway
Post-transaction or post-treatment complaints focused on a private dispute are not protected speech under California’s anti-SLAPP law.
California courts have been clear: the anti-SLAPP statute protects speech about public issues, not private grievances.
If your business or professional reputation has been damaged by false online statements that do not serve any public purpose, you may have strong grounds to oppose an anti-SLAPP motion and pursue your defamation claim.
About the Author
Andy Yang, Esq. is a California attorney and registered patent attorney with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. He represents clients in defamation, business litigation, and intellectual-property matters.
For consultation or case evaluation, contact The Law Office of Andy Yang.