From Monday's decision in Hicks v. Grimmway Enterprises, Inc., by Judge Janis Sammartino (S.D. Cal.):
In this putative class action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, a California agricultural corporation, misrepresented the environmental impact of its farming practices through its advertising and "Inaugural Report on Environmental, Social and Governance Actions" ("ESG Report"). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's statements about "regenerative farming"; its Environmental, Social, and Governance ("ESG") commitments; and "preserving natural resources" were "false, deceptive, and misleading." According to Plaintiff, Defendant's "method of growing its goods is causing severe harm to the ecosystem, and to its neighbors and communities." Plaintiff purports to represent a class of consumers who "would not have purchased (or would not have paid a premium [for])" Defendant's products had they known of Defendant's allegedly misleading statements. The FAC asserts three causes of action: (1) false advertising …; (2) "unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent" business practices …; and (3) violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act ….
Defendant argues that Plaintiff's three causes of action should be dismissed under California's anti-SLAPP statute because "(a) [they are] impermissibly predicated on Defendant Grimmway's exercise of its free speech rights (namely, political advocacy and statements of public interest), and (b) Plaintiff will fail to establish a probability of prevailing on the merits." Plaintiff counters that "all of the language at issue is 'commercial speech,' " which "does not receive [a]nti-SLAPP protections." …
[Under] § 425.17(c), the "commercial speech exemption[]" …, causes of action arising from commercial speech are exempt from the anti-SLAPP law when:
