Predictably, Hallmark dragged out the usual defenses, namely, the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. Included among the usual suspects of defenses was an interesting move. A move to strike Hilton’s misappropriation claim based on California’s Anti-SLAPP laws (CCP § 425.16). The Anti-SLAPP law (found <a href=”http://casp.net/statutes/cal425.html“><u>here</u></a>) moves to prevent intimidation and the silencing of critics by use of the courts and burdensome and expensive litigation. Said simply, Anti-SLAPP is a move by the California Legislature to protect people’s freedom of speech from unnecessary litigation.

Hilton argued that (well her lawyers argued) the card itself was commercial speech and thus only allowed minimal protection. Hallmark countered saying it was free speech, satirizing Hilton. The court sided with Hallmark, further stating commercial speech is speech merely advertising or soliciting business and not, as Hilton would argue, anything connected to the product of that company.

Although Hallmark met the threshold for Anti-SLAPP protection, Hilton was still allowed to go forth with her misappropriation claim. Although Hallmark’s free speech is the source of Hilton’s suit, as long as she can sustain a legal claim she cannot be prevented from suing Hallmark on her misappropriation claim.

The court further said, “”We must conclude that Hallmark cannot employ the ‘public interest’ defense because its birthday card does not publish or report information.”

The case has now been handed down for trial.