The case raised in the above is mainly due to the use by Electronic Arts an impression that included Keller and other student-affiliated characters in their designing of the video game. This implies that the company may have infringed on the rights of these athletes protection from unwarranted publicity. This is what the Keller and the Arizona State University on the use of its content in designing the game. On the other hand, the company ran to the First Amendment in asking that the claim be dismissed.
The company on this occasion wanted the application of dismissal to be based on the California anti-SLAPP law. There is need to have a brief description of the California anti-SLAPP law. It states that a course of action which appears to be arising from the need to further the person’s right to right of petition or freedom of speech and expression under the tenets of the United States Constitution in regard to a public issue shall be considered to be put to the motion of strike unless the court decides that the plaintiff will have a probability of prevalence against the claim. This im0lies that the company sought to depict the use of characters in the college football as furtherance of their right to expression under the US constitution and therefore the anti-SLAPP …show more content…
This is where the courts found that the company depicted physical among other characteristics of Keller in designing its games and this is not a prove of having any additions to the known understanding og the football and thus there could be no grounds upon which the case would be struck out. The court therefore rule in favor of the defendant and this meant that Electronic Arts was culpable and had to pay damages and compensation fees to the plaintiff ad all other parties of
The company on this occasion wanted the application of dismissal to be based on the California anti-SLAPP law. There is need to have a brief description of the California anti-SLAPP law. It states that a course of action which appears to be arising from the need to further the person’s right to right of petition or freedom of speech and expression under the tenets of the United States Constitution in regard to a public issue shall be considered to be put to the motion of strike unless the court decides that the plaintiff will have a probability of prevalence against the claim. This im0lies that the company sought to depict the use of characters in the college football as furtherance of their right to expression under the US constitution and therefore the anti-SLAPP …show more content…
This is where the courts found that the company depicted physical among other characteristics of Keller in designing its games and this is not a prove of having any additions to the known understanding og the football and thus there could be no grounds upon which the case would be struck out. The court therefore rule in favor of the defendant and this meant that Electronic Arts was culpable and had to pay damages and compensation fees to the plaintiff ad all other parties of