When a business believes a documentary has crossed the line from criticism to defamation, the natural instinct is to “fight back” with a lawsuit. OneTaste Incorporated v. Netflix, Inc. is a sharp reminder that in California, anti-SLAPP and the actual malice standard make that a very steep climb—especially against a global streaming platform. In this published decision, the Second District Court of Appeal affirmed an order striking OneTaste’s defamation complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, holding that OneTaste (treated as a public figure) failed to show a probability of proving actual malice by clear and convincing evidence.
The Backdrop: A Long History of Public Controversy
OneTaste is a wellness company founded in 2004 around “orgasmic meditation,” with retreat centers, group living arrangements, and an intense internal culture. Over time, major outlets like Bloomberg, the BBC, and others reported serious allegations about coercive sexual practices and exploitation within the organization, including accusations by former employee Ayries Blanck that she had been pressured into sexual activity with customers and managers; OneTaste had previously paid her $325,000 to settle her claims.
In 2022, Netflix released Orgasm Inc.: The Story of OneTaste, a documentary that drew heavily on prior investigative reporting and interviews with Blanck, her sister, and other former members. The film portrayed Blanck’s allegations of rape and physical abuse in connection with her time at OneTaste, and suggested that the organization condoned that conduct.
OneTaste sued Netflix in 2023 for defamation, targeting five specific statements and arguing that a reasonable viewer would conclude that OneTaste caused or condoned the sexual assault and beating of Blanck. OneTaste claimed it had given Netflix materials “proving” the allegations were false and that Netflix nonetheless went forward, allegedly acting with actual malice.
Netflix responded with a special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16, California’s anti-SLAPP statute. The parties agreed the film addressed a public issue, so the case turned on step two: could OneTaste show a probability of prevailing—including clear and convincing evidence of actual malice? The trial court said no and granted the motion; OneTaste appealed.
The Court’s anti-SLAPP and actual-malice analysis
The Court of Appeal framed the key question simply: assuming the challenged statements are actionable, can OneTaste show it is likely to prove actual malice—that Netflix either knew the statements were false or entertained serious doubts about their truth—by clear and convincing evidence?
A few points from the court’s reasoning matter for any business or media defendant:
- Public figure + anti-SLAPP = high burden. As a public figure, OneTaste had to show its evidence could persuade a factfinder, to a clear-and-convincing standard, that Netflix subjectively doubted its own reporting. The test is about Netflix’s state of mind, not whether OneTaste can assemble materials that it believes refute the allegations.
- Reliance on reputable prior reporting cuts against malice. Netflix submitted evidence that it relied on years of coverage from mainstream outlets, a detailed Bloomberg investigation, a BBC podcast, and extensive work by the independent production company. The record showed outreach to OneTaste for comment and inclusion of the company’s denials. That pattern, the court held, strongly supported Netflix’s good-faith belief in the truth of the allegations.
- Plaintiff’s “proof of falsity” didn’t speak to Netflix’s mindset. OneTaste emphasized employment records, statements from Blanck’s friends, and other materials it said undermined her account. But none of that showed Netflix had “obvious reasons to doubt” its sources or deliberately avoided the truth. The court stressed that not telling a friend about sexual assault, for example, does not inherently make allegations “obviously dubious.”
OneTaste also launched a broad constitutional and policy attack on the anti-SLAPP statute—challenging the actual-malice requirement for public figures, fee-shifting, the evidentiary burden at step two, and the discovery stay. The court found most of these arguments forfeited for lack of developed briefing and, in any event, pointed to California Supreme Court precedent that has already upheld the anti-SLAPP framework and its safeguards.
Bottom line: the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that OneTaste had not carried its burden to show a probability of proving actual malice and leaving Netflix’s anti-SLAPP victory, and fee entitlement, intact.
Why OneTaste v. Netflix matters
For businesses, tech platforms, and content producers, the decision offers several practical lessons:
- “We disagree with the documentary” is not enough. A corporate plaintiff needs evidence about the publisher’s state of mind—red flags Netflix knew about and ignored, internal doubts, or deliberate avoidance of contrary information—not simply its own contrary narrative or after-the-fact investigations.
- Anti-SLAPP is a powerful early-stage weapon. Media and tech defendants can combine anti-SLAPP with a robust evidentiary showing—prior reputable reporting, documented investigative steps, contemporaneous outreach to the subject—to knock out defamation claims at the pleading stage and recover significant attorneys’ fees.
- Constitutional attacks on anti-SLAPP remain uphill. For now, California courts continue to treat anti-SLAPP, including the discovery stay and fee-shifting, as a valid legislative choice—meaning litigants should plan around that reality rather than banking on a constitutional end-run.
For in-house counsel and business owners deciding whether to sue over a documentary or high-profile article, OneTaste v. Netflix is a cautionary tale. Before filing, it’s worth doing a candid assessment: What did the publisher actually know? What sources did they rely on? Are there real indications of fabrication or reckless disregard—or is the complaint mostly a dispute over narrative and spin? Those questions will drive not only the merits, but whether your lawsuit survives an early, fee-shifting anti-SLAPP challenge.
If you’re on the defense side—media, tech, or any company whose communications touch on public controversies—this case underscores the value of, careful use of prior reporting, and contemporaneous communications with the subject. Those habits can make the difference between a costly defamation trial and an early exit.