Anti-SLAPP Law Protects Kardashian Sisters After They Trashed Debit Card Business Partner

from the free-speech-for-all dept

The Kardashian sisters, who are among the current crop of celebrities who appear to be famous for being famous, got a lot of extra (negative) attention last fall when the press started reporting on the ridiculous fees that were found on “The Kardashian Kard,” a new debit card that the women had put their name on, and for which they got a cut of any profits. As the negative publicity piled on, the Kardashians pulled out of the deal and shut down the card. The company behind the actual card (Revenue Resource Group) then sued the Kardashians, claiming breach of contract and that the Kardashians themselves were responsible for $75 million in damages, and the destruction of the entire company. Of course, it seems worth pointing out that only 250 people actually got the card in the time it was available…

While this might sound like a basic breach of contract lawsuit, apparently the Kardashians’ lawyers successfully turned it into a free speech issue, and were able to use California’s excellent anti-SLAPP law to not just get the lawsuit dismissed, but to put Revenue Resource Group on the hook for attorneys’ fees as well:

?We do not have a mere breach of contract action here, seeking recovery from the Kardashians of the contract damages for their breach of same,? [Judge Jeffrey] Hamilton writes in an 8-page order… ?Instead, we have an attempt to also charge the defendants with loss of all other business unrelated to them, specifically tied to defendants? exercise of free speech.?

The judge then finds that the credit card company likely can?t prove that the Kardashians ruined its business. ?Plaintiff alleges that is (sic) was the publicity that killed off its business and ran off other potential celebrity clients,? the judgment states. ?But it was not merely the Kardashian termination letter that did it ? it was the onslaught of negative coverage before and after their statement about the fees and charges associated with the card. In other words, the product?s features themselves caused the problem once they became clearer to the public.?

As a fan of anti-SLAPP laws, this is an interesting ruling for a variety of reasons. It makes me wonder if we’ll see more clashes between contract claims and First Amendment rights…

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Anti-SLAPP Law Protects Kardashian Sisters After They Trashed Debit Card Business Partner”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:


Except that they weren’t the first to say it in public. Seems that would make a big difference.

On the flip side, it seems they didn’t bother to actually understand what the hell they were pasting their names onto either. They failed in that responsibility unless they were outright lied to by the debit card company.

hautedawg says:

Kim and company

They are all sluts, whores and worthless. They are famous because their father represented OJ, or was one of the attorneys in that fiasco, their step father is Bruce Jenner (looking old) and they are living on their “fame”.

They have signed on for many things, famous for being famous. If they signed the contract, they should be bound to it. Of course the debit card company sounds pretty shady, so maybe there is a whore battle going on.

I just don’t like them, don’t have any respect for people sucking money off the teat of the trailer parks of America from people who wish they were as “glamorous” as the Kardisian whores.

My opinioin is free speech here!

James J. Moneer, Esq. (user link) says:

CA anti-SLAPP laws

Please send me a citation to the case. Was it a published or an unpublished decision? It sounds like it is a section 425.16, subd. (e)(4) public issue SLAPP. Almost any cause of action predicated on speech or writing and a celebrity has recently been found by the Courts of Appeal to invoke the anti-SLAPP protections against meritless civil suits based on their public issue speech or communication to any government agency.

I am a panelist giving anti-SLAPP seminars for Lawyers at Rutter Group, Pincus and others. I have been teaching anti-SLAPP law at University of San Diego School of law since 2001 and have been specializing in SLAPP cases for both sides since 1994. I have argued a SLAPP cases before the California Supreme Court. See

James J. Moneer, Esq.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...