"Whether or not these are Michael Jacksons vocals is irrelevant, if its non-commercial speak we win, its over" - Michael Jackson Estate Lawyer. This is such a disgrace and its unbelievable this is allowed to go on so many levels. Absolute madness.
---
Sony wins Fake Michael Jackson Recording Claims for Second Time.
"For a second time, Sony Music beat claims in California state court that it deceived customers about whether some tracks on a posthumous Michael Jackson album were sung by Jackson.
The Court of Appeal of California affirmed Jan. 8 that Sony’s statements were still protected under state law following a relevant California Supreme Court opinion published after its initial ruling.
Vera Serova, the Michael Jackson Fan that took the Estate & Sony to court over the 3 fake songs [“Breaking News”, “Monster” & “Keep your Head Up”] has again lost her appeal to prove wrong doing from Sony Music in the promotion of the album “Michael” released in 2010.
Sony, the Estate of Michael J. Jackson, and MJJ Productions appealed from the superior court’s order partially denying their motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute. Plaintiff alleged that defendants marketed a posthumous Michael Jackson album in violation of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). Plaintiff also brought a fraud claim against the Cascio Defendants, alleging that they knowingly misrepresented to defendants that Jackson was the lead singer on the three tracks at issue.
Upon reconsideration in light of FilmOn.com Inc. v. Double Verify Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 133, the Court of Appeal held that its prior opinion was correct. In the prior opinion, the court held that plaintiff’s claims against defendants arose from conduct furthering defendants’ right of free speech in connection with a public issue, and that plaintiff did not show a probability that her claims under the UCL and the CLRA would succeed because the claims concern noncommercial speech that is not actionable under those statutes.
The court largely adopted the prior opinion, except that it revised the discussion of the first step of the anti-SLAPP procedure to take into account the FilmOn decision and its application to the circumstances of this case. The court held that defendants’ challenged statements were sufficiently connected to an issue of public interest to warrant anti-SLAPP protection. In this case, the representations that plaintiff challenged did not simply promote sale of the album, but also stated a position on a disputed issue of public interest."
