Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, STATE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES—N.D. Cal.: Activists state claims against circus operator over alleged harassment, (Oct 9, 2013)

By Jody Coultas, J.D.

Animal rights activists had standing to assert a California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) claim against a circus operator that allegedly harassed the activists while they videotaped the treatment of the animals by the operator, the federal district court in San Jose has held (Campbell v. Feld Entertainment Inc., October 4, 2013, Koh, L.).

The activists protest the treatment of animals at circuses and hold signs and banners and offer informational leaflets about the condition and treatment of animals that perform in the circus. The activists also videotape the treatment of the animals. Circus employees allegedly harassed and interfered with the videotaping, engaged in physical assaults and attempts to block cameras, and used laser pointers and strobe lights to interfere with the cameras.

To have standing to assert a UCL claim, a plaintiff must establish a loss or deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify as injury in fact and show that that economic injury was caused by the unfair business practice. An injury in fact is an invasion of a legally protected interest which is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent.

The activists had standing to state a UCL claim against the circus operator, according to the court. As a result of the operator’s alleged harassment, the activists contended that they had to keep cameras turned on for extended periods of time in order to document assaults upon the activists and other activities. This required the purchase of significantly larger and significantly more expensive memory cards, and that the alleged harassment caused embarrassment, humiliation, mental suffering, and emotional distress. The lack of allegations of business dealings between the activists and the operator was not fatal to the claim as a business relationship is not required by the UCL. The purchaser of more expensive memory cards was sufficient to allege an economic injury. The operator failed to support its argument that the activists would have recorded the same amount of video regardless of circus employees’ actions.

The cases are Nos. 12-CV-4233-LHK and 13-CV-0233-LHK.

Attorneys: Whitney Leigh (Gonzalez & Leigh, LLP) for Shannon Campbell. Matthew A. Siroka for Mark Ennis. Rubina Kazi (McManis Faulkner) for Feld Entertainment, Inc.

Cases: StateUnfairTradePractices CaliforniaNews