CNN Must Defend Lawsuit over Online Captioning


A California court recently ruled that a lawsuit in which a group representing deaf citizens contended that CNN must provide captioning for videos uploaded to its website may proceed.  The group, The Greater Los Angeles Agency on Deafness, brought suit under the California's Unruh Civil Rights Act and the California Disabled Person's Act.  The court's decision is available here.

CNN responded to the suit by moving to dismiss under California's Anti-SLAPP statute, Section 425.16 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, contending that the claims arise from its newsgathering activities and dissemination of the news, both of which are protected activities under the free speech and free press clauses of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The case was filed in federal court in the Northern District of California, and, in a lenghty written decision, the court denied CNN's motion, which means that the plaintiffs' lawsuit may move forward.  The basis for the court's decision was its finding that CNN failed to make a prima facie showing that its refusal to provide captioning for online content is "conduct . . . in furtherance of" its broadcast activities.  That meant the Anti-SLAPP statute did not apply.

The court first rejected CNN's argument that the Anti-SLAPP statute applied because all of CNN's business activities are in furtherance of its broadcast speech.  The court concluded that a categorical rule that all activities by any media defendant would trigger the statute was too broad and exceeded its plain language.  The court then found that the particular conduct at issue here -- CNN's refusal to provide captioning for its online video content -- likewise did not constitute acts in furtherance of speech.  In reaching this conclusion, the court noted that the plaintiffs "do not assert a right to change CNN's broadcast or expressive content or otherwise interfere with CNN's editorial decisions."  Finally, the court rejected CNN's argument that the plaintiffs' claims fell within the scope of the Anti-SLAPP statute because they impacted an editorial decision it made (related to the accuracy of captioning) and would increase its costs.

This case is interesting because it presents a wrinkle to the FCC's captioning rules, which apply to on-air broadcasts but not to internet distribution of content.  Notwithstanding the non-applicability of those rules to the facts of this case, it will be interesting to follow how CNN fares in defending against state statutory civil rights claims.  We will continue to monitor the progress of this case.



DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Brooks Pierce | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Brooks Pierce on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.