Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Johnathan Talbot sued after climber Manoah Ainuu posted on Instagram about an encounter and accused Talbot of racist comments and assault. Talbot alleged defamation and interference with his employment; The North Face and Ainuu invoked Washington’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, an anti-SLAPP law protecting qualifying public expression.
A Montana federal court dismissed the claims but declined to apply the anti-SLAPP statute. The parties cross-appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The majority concluded that the statements challenged as racist were too subjective to be actionable and that, in context, the assault description also did not support the claims. It further held that the posts arose primarily from a private dispute rather than protected speech on a matter of public concern, so Washington’s UPEPA did not apply.
Judge Nelson would have allowed the claims concerning the assault accusation to proceed. Judge Graber would have treated the speech as concerning systemic racism in the outdoor industry and applied UPEPA, which would have supported mandatory fee shifting.
Key Takeaways
- Defamation analysis turns on how a reasonable reader would understand the statement in its full social-media context.
- Subjective characterizations and loose rhetoric are less likely to imply provable facts.
- A personal dispute does not necessarily become public-concern speech merely because it references a broader social issue.
- The separate opinions show that context, motive, and the line between fact and opinion can remain contestable.
Why It Matters
The unpublished disposition is not binding precedent, but it illustrates the early, fact-sensitive screening that online-speech cases receive in Ninth Circuit courts. California litigators handling multistate online disputes should address choice of law and the precise coverage requirements of the applicable anti-SLAPP statute.