The California anti-SLAPP statute took center stage Wednesday as a state appeals court affirmed the dismissal of a defamation lawsuit against a journalist who reported on a former tech CEO’s 2021 arrest on suspicion of domestic violence.
A three-judge panel concluded that claims brought by former Premise Data president and CEO Maury Blackman against reporter Jack Poulson targeted protected speech on a matter of public interest. According to the ruling, Poulson’s newsletter posts about Blackman’s arrest were connected to Premise Data’s government work, including providing data to the U.S. military, making the information newsworthy.
Presiding Justice Tracie L. Brown wrote that Poulson’s publicly available newsletter focused on technology and national security, and by discussing Premise Data’s government contracts and disclosing Blackman’s arrest, his reporting contributed to public discourse on those issues.
The panel agreed with the lower court that the First Amendment protected Poulson because he lawfully obtained a truthful arrest report and did not know it had been sealed when he received it. Brown noted that by releasing the incident report without restriction, the government signaled its dissemination served the public interest, and media cannot be penalized for relying on that determination.
California anti-SLAPP statute and platform immunity
The appeals court also upheld findings that the Communications Decency Act shields Substack and Tech Inquiry, the public website founded by Poulson, from liability as neutral conduits for third-party content. The panel affirmed an award of attorneys fees to the defendants.
Associate Justice Danny Y. Chou and Marin County Superior Court Judge Andrew E. Sweet, sitting by designation, joined the decision.
In a statement, David Greene of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, counsel for Poulson, called the ruling a significant victory for the First Amendment and the free flow of information. He said journalists who obtain newsworthy government records through lawful means should not be forced to defend meritless lawsuits and noted the court recognized protections under the California Shield Law and Section 230.
Representatives for Blackman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Poulson disclosed Blackman’s sealed arrest, which did not lead to a conviction, in a 2023 Substack article that linked to a redacted incident report. Poulson has said the document was confidentially provided to him and lacked the required notice indicating it was sealed.
Blackman sued Poulson, Substack and Tech Inquiry under a John Doe pseudonym in San Francisco Superior Court in December 2024, asserting 14 claims including negligence, public disclosure of private facts, defamation and alleged violations of the California Penal Code.
California’s anti-SLAPP law allows defendants to quickly strike lawsuits that aim to chill protected speech and to recover attorneys fees if successful.
In February 2025, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Christine Van Aken granted the anti-SLAPP motion, ruling that Poulson’s conduct was protected by the First Amendment and that the Communications Decency Act barred claims against Substack and Tech Inquiry. The appellate ruling leaves that decision intact.
The case unfolded alongside a separate challenge brought in November 2024 by free speech advocates on Poulson’s behalf against Attorney General Rob Bonta and San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu. The lawsuit argued a California penal code section was being used, at Blackman’s request, to target journalists who reported information related to Blackman’s arrest records.
The parties later reached an agreement in December 2024 allowing people to share information obtained through public records requests or otherwise publicly available sources, similar to how other criminal investigations have been scrutinized in the courts.
