Andersen v. Stability AI Ltd.

Background

The plaintiffs brought claims concerning defendants’ alleged use of artists’ names and artwork to train, promote, or support artificial-intelligence art products. DeviantArt, Inc. filed a special motion to strike under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, and the other defendants joined that motion. The motion challenged the plaintiffs’ right-of-publicity claims.

In an earlier order, the court dismissed those right-of-publicity claims with leave to amend. The court required the plaintiffs to clarify their theories and allege plausible facts showing how each defendant used each plaintiff’s name in advertising or other commercial activities. The plaintiffs later filed an amended complaint but omitted the right-of-publicity claims.

DeviantArt renewed its anti-SLAPP motion, arguing that the motion should be granted because the challenged claims had been omitted. DeviantArt also argued that it was entitled to attorney fees for bringing the initial and renewed motions.

Legal standard

California’s anti-SLAPP statute is intended to protect speech and petitioning activity from lawsuits brought primarily to chill those activities. Courts ordinarily use a two-step process: the defendant first must show that the lawsuit arises from protected activity, and the plaintiff then must show a reasonable probability of prevailing on the claim.

Before applying that two-step process, the court considered California’s public-interest exception. That exception applies when three conditions are met: the plaintiff seeks no relief greater than or different from the relief sought for the public or a relevant class; success would enforce an important right affecting the public interest and provide a significant public benefit; and private enforcement is necessary and imposes a disproportionate financial burden on the plaintiff compared with the plaintiff’s stake in the matter.

Court’s analysis

The court found that all three conditions were satisfied. First, the plaintiffs did not seek relief on the right-of-publicity claims that was greater than or different from the relief sought for the class.

Second, the court concluded that the claims involved an important public-interest issue. The alleged use of artists’ names to advertise art and commercial products raised a significant, cutting-edge question about whether and how art-generation products may use artists’ names, including in connection with an artist’s style. Clarifying the scope of artists’ rights would provide a significant benefit to artists in California.

Third, the court found that private enforcement was necessary and that an individual plaintiff’s financial interest appeared insignificant compared with the costs of litigating claims involving the alleged use of billions of pieces of art against well-funded defendants.

The court discussed a Ninth Circuit panel decision involving a class action and alleged commercial use of names and likenesses. Although that decision had been vacated after rehearing was granted and was no longer binding, the court found its analysis of California law helpful. The court separately concluded that the public-interest exception applied based on the allegations in this case.

Because the exception applied, the court did not decide whether DeviantArt’s conduct was protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute or whether DeviantArt was the prevailing party for purposes of fees. The court also summarily rejected the plaintiffs’ request for fees under the anti-SLAPP statute and 28 U.S.C. § 1927, stating that DeviantArt’s initial and renewed motions were not frivolous or completely without merit.

Disposition

The court denied DeviantArt’s special motion to strike, both as considered against the original complaint and as renewed. The opinion also rejected the plaintiffs’ request for fees.