Legal News

Court Deals Loss to Dr. Phil, Win for Talk Show Hosts

By Matthew Heller, Editor

A California appeals court has allowed two women to proceed with a fraud case against Dr. Phil but gave a boost to talk show hosts by finding that a free-speech law protects them from liability for just about any conduct related to the making of a program.

?We do not have to specify the outer limits of the application of the principle of furtherance of free speech,? the court said in a Jan. 6 opinion, while expressing concern that California's anti-SLAPP law has too broad a reach.

Shirley Dieu and Crystal Matchett sued Dr. Phil and the producers of his talk show last year for allegedly duping them into appearing in a 2007 episode of ?The Dr. Phil House,? in which six guests agree to spend up to a week at a home being filmed interacting with the host and other houseguests.

The women, who initially filed separate complaints, say Dr. Phil misrepresented to them that they would receive therapy directly from him. They also allegedly suffered a traumatic experience when a naked man was sent to the house to test their reactions.

Dr. Phil moved for dismissal of the case under the anti-SLAPP law, arguing that any alleged misrepresentations were ?in furtherance? of free speech and the plaintiffs could not show a probability of prevailing on the merits because they had signed liability waivers.

Reversing a Los Angeles trial judge who said the law did not apply, the 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled that the claims of Dieu and Matchett arose from protected activity and the program involved ?matters of public interest.?

The court was particularly generous toward broadcasters in finding that the ?defendants? conduct in allegedly making certain representations to plaintiffs to induce them into participating in the Program was in 'aid of,' or in furtherance of, the Program,? as required by the law.

?We recognize,? Justice Richard M. Mosk wrote for the court,

that our application of ?in furtherance? of free speech could theoretically apply to virtually all alleged actionable conduct in connection with the production of any form of media. Nevertheless, the authorities, as well as the statutes and admonitions from the Supreme Court to interpret the SLAPP statute broadly compel our conclusion here.

However, the 2nd District also said Dieu and Matchett had demonstrated a likelihood of prevailing on their misrepresentation claims. The liability releases, it said, did not waive the ?specific representations upon which plaintiffs sue.?

Dieu and Matchett were part of a show with four other guests about the difficulties they all had in interacting with others. Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Allen White ruled in March that the show was not ?a news report that concerns an activity of important public interest. Rather it is a show addressed at  helping people deal with their personal issues.?

She also said, ?Any protected activity is incidental to the claim. Plaintiffs['] claims are not based on how they were portrayed on the program.?

The appeals court disagreed, finding that ?matters of public interest are not limited to those presented by news shows? and ?The Dr. Phil show ... addresses such issues as weight loss, financial planning, marriage, drug use, and dysfunctional families.?

Justice Mosk's comments on protected activity echoed the oral arguments when he wondered whether the scope of the anti-SLAPP law is now so broad that it covers anything having to do with news and entertainment. ?All I'm saying is, has this gone out of control?? he asked Dr. Phil's lawyer.

The opinion in Dieu v. McGraw is unpublished but Mosk appears to be inviting the California Supreme Court ?to specify the outer limits of the application of the principle of furtherance of free speech.? As things stand now, a TV producer who hypnotized someone into appearing on a show could be shielded from liability.

As far as the naked man, Dieu and Matchett could recover damages for the trauma of seeing him if Dr. Phil and his producers were grossly negligent. The liability waivers bar ordinary negligence claims.

By Matthew Heller
On Point

Full post as published by On Point News on January 08, 2011 (boomark / email).