Uploaded September 2023 | Updated September 2026, 2 hours ago
This is a First Amendment case, which I litigate regularly, including in the appellate arena. I am 10-0 in defeating anti-SLAPP motions (which are motions that defendants bring claiming their First Amendment rights are violated), both at the trial and appellate court levels. California has robust anti-SLAPP protection for its citizens. The anti-SLAPP is covered under Code of Civil Procedure Sections 425.16(e)(3) and (e)(4). DeCastro has threatened a lawsuit against Dickbag Patrol ("DP"). I have never met any of them, but I wanted to take an unbiased look, after seeing the "Cease & Desist" letter DeCastro issued. By the way, can someone tell me why he is called "Chille"? I am not trying to insult him. If he prefers his actual name, then so be it. The areas covered by DP include matters of public interest, including DeCastro running for governor, and his Youtube channel with 300,000 subscribers, which is a highly impressive number. This really hurts DeCastro's case, as he becomes either a full or limited purpose public figure ("LPP"). This level of notoriety makes his burden of proof difficult. Since he doesn't have widespread notoriety, I think he will be a LPP. As for the anti-SLAPP, DP has many defenses available to him, including "fair report," "breathing space," satire, comedy, fair use, and commenting on a public issue. Under the Reader's Digest decision, DeCastro would likely be a LPP. As a LPP, he must prevail by meeting a very difficult standard: that of "clear and convincing evidence." Also, the burden of proof is on him, not DP. This is almost like a video tape level of proof. Under Geiser and FilmOn, the two most important (and recent) First Amendment cases involving defamation, I just don't see DeCastro overcoming DP's defenses. If DP wins the motion, DeCastro must pay DP's legal fees and costs, and the case is dismissed. If DeCastro wins, he does not get legal fees, and the case goes forward, with neither side able to get their fees. The entity that threatened to sue DP is a suspended corporation, meaning it cannot sue DP until the suspension is lifted, usually through a combination of paying unpaid franchise fees, taxes and bringing the filings current with the Secretary of State. Also, a corporation in California is required to obtain counsel; it cannot represent itself. DeCastro leans heavily on a Bette Midler case involving Ford Motor Company, but the case is inapplicable. Midler has public notoriety, and they used her (fake) voice to deceive the public that she backed Ford, after she refused to do any advertising with them. DeCastro doesn't have such notoriety (few of us do), and the "fake" voice used by AI Chille is for laughs and public information, and does not fit within "Midler," which was really a lawsuit about protecting a celebrities' right to their identities, called a "publicity" claim. None of this is legal advice, but just my observations. No attorney-client relationship is created nor is one implied. My analysis is also protected by the anti-SLAPP statute, and other defenses, all of which are reserved.
This is a First Amendment case, which I litigate regularly, including in the appellate arena. I am 10-0 in defeating anti-SLAPP motions (which are motions that defendants bring claiming their First Amendment rights are violated), both at the trial and appellate court levels. California has robust anti-SLAPP protection for its citizens. The anti-SLAPP is covered under Code of Civil Procedure Sections 425.16(e)(3) and (e)(4). DeCastro has threatened a lawsuit against Dickbag Patrol ("DP"). I have never met any of them, but I wanted to take an unbiased look, after seeing the "Cease & Desist" letter DeCastro issued. By the way, can someone tell me why he is called "Chille"? I am not trying to insult him. If he prefers his actual name, then so be it. The areas covered by DP include matters of public interest, including DeCastro running for governor, and his Youtube channel with 300,000 subscribers, which is a highly impressive number. This really hurts DeCastro's case, as he becomes either a full or limited purpose public figure ("LPP"). This level of notoriety makes his burden of proof difficult. Since he doesn't have widespread notoriety, I think he will be a LPP. As for the anti-SLAPP, DP has many defenses available to him, including "fair report," "breathing space," satire, comedy, fair use, and commenting on a public issue. Under the Reader's Digest decision, DeCastro would likely be a LPP. As a LPP, he must prevail by meeting a very difficult standard: that of "clear and convincing evidence." Also, the burden of proof is on him, not DP. This is almost like a video tape level of proof. Under Geiser and FilmOn, the two most important (and recent) First Amendment cases involving defamation, I just don't see DeCastro overcoming DP's defenses. If DP wins the motion, DeCastro must pay DP's legal fees and costs, and the case is dismissed. If DeCastro wins, he does not get legal fees, and the case goes forward, with neither side able to get their fees. The entity that threatened to sue DP is a suspended corporation, meaning it cannot sue DP until the suspension is lifted, usually through a combination of paying unpaid franchise fees, taxes and bringing the filings current with the Secretary of State. Also, a corporation in California is required to obtain counsel; it cannot represent itself. DeCastro leans heavily on a Bette Midler case involving Ford Motor Company, but the case is inapplicable. Midler has public notoriety, and they used her (fake) voice to deceive the public that she backed Ford, after she refused to do any advertising with them. DeCastro doesn't have such notoriety (few of us do), and the "fake" voice used by AI Chille is for laughs and public information, and does not fit within "Midler," which was really a lawsuit about protecting a celebrities' right to their identities, called a "publicity" claim. None of this is legal advice, but just my observations. No attorney-client relationship is created nor is one implied. My analysis is also protected by the anti-SLAPP statute, and other defenses, all of which are reserved.
