OneTaste Incorporated v. Netflix, Inc.

In defamation action brought against Netflix based on documentary stating that plaintiff was involved in the sexual assault and abuse of a former employee, California appeals court affirms striking of complaint because plaintiff failed to demonstrate probability of prevailing on element of actual malice.

Plaintiff OneTaste Incorporated is a wellness company that promoted a sexual practice called “orgasmic meditation” (OM). OneTaste opened locations across the United States focused on OM, including residences where OM participants lived together. Beginning in 2018, several news organizations and media outlets published stories describing OneTaste as a “kind of prostitution ring” in which employees, staffers and community members were sexually exploited. Several publications referenced the allegations of Ayries Blanck, a former employee to whom OneTaste had paid $325,000 to settle her claim that she had been ordered to sleep with customers and managers.

Netflix released the documentary Orgasm Inc.: The Story of OneTaste in November 2022. The documentary sought to provide an “inside look” at OM through primary-source material and featured original interviews with multiple former members and a Bloomberg journalist. OneTaste sued Netflix for defamation, alleging that the documentary contained false statements of fact suggesting that Blanck had been raped and beaten in connection with her employment at OneTaste and that OneTaste condoned that conduct. OneTaste alleged that Netflix published the false statements with actual malice.

Netflix moved to strike the complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute, asserting that OneTaste could not demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the merits because, among other things, OneTaste could not make a prima facie showing that Netflix acted with actual malice. The trial court granted the motion to strike and OneTaste appealed.

Under the California anti-SLAPP statute, Netflix was required to make a “threshold showing that the challenged cause of action is one arising from protected activity.” To survive the motion, OneTaste would then need to “demonstrate[] a probability of prevailing on the claim.” Because the parties did not dispute that OneTaste’s defamation claim arose from protected activity, the court considered whether OneTaste was likely to prevail on each element of its claim.

As a “public figure,” OneTaste was required to prove that Netflix intentionally published a false statement of fact with actual malice. The actual malice standard required OneTaste to show it could present clear and convincing evidence that Netflix acted with knowledge that its statements were false or with a reckless disregard of their falsity.

The court affirmed the trial court’s holding that OneTaste failed to establish a probability that it could produce clear and convincing evidence of actual malice. OneTaste argued that Netflix acted with actual malice because OneTaste presented proof that OneTaste did not have access to Blanck’s residence, friends of Blanck stated she had not mentioned her sexual abuse allegations to them, and Blanck was offered a financial incentive to participate in the documentary. This evidence did not show actual malice because Blanck never alleged that OneTaste had access to her residence, Blanck’s allegations against OneTaste “had already been widely reported,” and not sharing sexual assault allegations with a close friend “does not suggest Netflix knew Blanck’s allegations were probably false, inherently improbable, or obviously dubious.”

Moreover, OneTaste “did not submit any evidence suggesting that Netflix deliberately avoided investigating the veracity of Blanck’s claims.” Rather, the record showed there were extensive efforts to interview OneTaste and its representatives and seek comments from them. Although OneTaste denied the claims, a “denial by a public official does not alone establish malice.” Further, extensive evidence supported Netflix’s subjective belief in the truth of the sexual assault allegations. Multiple media outlets had reported the accusation and OneTaste “did not contend that these publications were disreputable or untrustworthy.”

The court affirmed the striking of the complaint and taxed the costs of the appeal to OneTaste.

Summary prepared by Safia Gray Hussain and Keane Barger