California Codes

Cal. Civil Code § 47 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A privileged publication or broadcast is one made:

(a)In the proper discharge of an official duty.

(b)In any (1) legislative proceeding, (2) judicial proceeding, (3) in any other official proceeding authorized by law, or (4) in the initiation or course of any other proceeding authorized by law and reviewable pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 1084) of Title 1 of Part 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, except as follows:

(1)An allegation or averment contained in any pleading or affidavit filed in an action for marital dissolution or legal separation made of or concerning a person by or against whom no affirmative relief is prayed in the action shall not be a privileged publication or broadcast as to the person making the allegation or averment within the meaning of this section unless the pleading is verified or affidavit sworn to, and is made without malice, by one having reasonable and probable cause for believing the truth of the allegation or averment and unless the allegation or averment is material and relevant to the issues in the action.

(2)This subdivision does not make privileged any communication made in furtherance of an act of intentional destruction or alteration of physical evidence undertaken for the purpose of depriving a party to litigation of the use of that evidence, whether or not the content of the communication is the subject of a subsequent publication or broadcast which is privileged pursuant to this section. As used in this paragraph, “physical evidence” means evidence specified in Section 250 of the Evidence Code or evidence that is property of any type specified in Chapter 14 (commencing with Section 2031.010) of Title 4 of Part 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3)This subdivision does not make privileged any communication made in a judicial proceeding knowingly concealing the existence of an insurance policy or policies.

(4)A recorded lis pendens is not a privileged publication unless it identifies an action previously filed with a court of competent jurisdiction which affects the title or right of possession of real property, as authorized or required by law.

(5)This subdivision does not make privileged any communication between a person and a law enforcement agency in which the person makes a false report that another person has committed, or is in the act of committing, a criminal act or is engaged in an activity requiring law enforcement intervention, knowing that the report is false, or with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the report.

(c)In a communication, without malice, to a person interested therein, (1) by one who is also interested, or (2) by one who stands in such a relation to the person interested as to afford a reasonable ground for supposing the motive for the communication to be innocent, or (3) who is requested by the person interested to give the information. This subdivision applies to and includes a communication concerning the job performance or qualifications of an applicant for employment, based upon credible evidence, made without malice, by a current or former employer of the applicant to, and upon request of, one whom the employer reasonably believes is a prospective employer of the applicant. This subdivision applies to and includes a complaint of sexual harassment by an employee, without malice, to an employer based upon credible evidence and communications between the employer and interested persons, without malice, regarding a complaint of sexual harassment. This subdivision authorizes a current or former employer, or the employer’s agent, to answer, without malice, whether or not the employer would rehire a current or former employee and whether the decision to not rehire is based upon the employer’s determination that the former employee engaged in sexual harassment. This subdivision does not apply to a communication concerning the speech or activities of an applicant for employment if the speech or activities are constitutionally protected, or otherwise protected by Section 527.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure or any other provision of law.

(d)(1)By a fair and true report in, or a communication to, a public journal, of (A) a judicial, (B) legislative, or (C) other public official proceeding, or (D) of anything said in the course thereof, or (E) of a verified charge or complaint made by any person to a public official, upon which complaint a warrant has been issued.

(2)Paragraph (1) does not make privileged any communication to a public journal that does any of the following:

(A)Violates Rule 3.6 of the State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct.

(B)Breaches a court order.

(C)Violates a requirement of confidentiality imposed by law.

(e)By a fair and true report of (1) the proceedings of a public meeting, if the meeting was lawfully convened for a lawful purpose and open to the public, or (2) the publication of the matter complained of was for the public benefit.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1,205 cases (353 in the last 5 years), 1943–2026 · leading case: Flatley v. Mauro, 139 P.3d 2 (Cal. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Flatley v. Mauro, 139 P.3d 2 (Cal. 2006). · cites it 8× “(Civ. Code, § 47, subd. (b).) 3. The Litigation Privilege and Section 425.”

W. Michael Kimes J. Colette Boykin v. Peter G. Stone, Judge, Superior Court Robert L. Mezzetti, II Henry Mariani Robert MacHado, 84 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 1996). · cites it 11× “The Attorney Defendants joined in Stone’s motion, and also moved for dismissal on the ground that their actions were protected by Cal.Civ.Code § 47, the litigation privilege.”

Healthsmart Pac., Inc. v. Kabateck, 82 Cal. Comp. Cases 20 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 7× “105 ; Civ. Code, §47, subd. (d).) Indeed, the Legislature’s explicit purpose for enacting a 1996 amendment to section 47, subdivision (d), was to protect such intermediaries.”

J-M Mfg. Co. v. Phillips & Cohen LLP, 247 Cal. App. 4th 87 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 8× “16), finding it was a question of fact for the jury whether the press release was privileged as a fair and true report of a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Civil Code section 47, subdivision (d). We reverse.”

Hawran v. Hixson, 209 Cal. App. 4th 256 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 6× “16 (commonly known as the anti-SLAPP statute), 1 in which defendants unsuccessfully asserted, among other things, the press release was *263 absolutely privileged by the official proceeding and fair reporting privileges (Civ. Code, § 47, subds. (b), (d)). The court left standing…”

Kashian v. Harriman, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4482 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “He argued that both his environmental litigation activities and his *903 letter to the Attorney General were absolutely privileged (Civ. Code, § 47, subd. (b)), and failed in any event to constitute a deceptive business practice or an actionable defamation, respectively.”

Sipple v. Found. for Nat'l Progress, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2602 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 8× “Civil Code section 47, subdivision (d) confers an absolute privilege on any fair and true report in, or a communication to, a public journal of a judicial proceeding, or anything said in the course thereof.”

Burrill v. Nair CA3, 217 Cal. App. 4th 357 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 6× “Fair Reporting Privilege Civil Code section 47 makes privileged “a fair and true report in, or a communication to, a public journal, of (A) a judicial, (B) legislative, or (C) other public official proceeding, or (D) of anything said in the course thereof, or (E) of a verified…”

Stephan Pardi v. Kaiser Found. Hospitals, 389 F.3d 840 (9th Cir. 2004). · cites it 4× “The district court also concluded that Kaiser’s report to the RCB and subsequent participation in the DCA’s investigation were privileged under California Civil Code § 47(b), which establishes an absolute litigation privilege for communications made in the course of litigation.”

Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche, 74 P.3d 737 (Cal. 2003). · cites it 3× “16 to malicious prosecution claims would have essentially the same effect of denying malicious prosecution victims a remedy as would applying the litigation privilege (Civ. Code, § 47, subd. (b)); hence, for the same reasons malicious prosecution claims are exempt from…”

Kibler v. N. Inyo Cnty. Local Hosp. Dist., 138 P.3d 193 (Cal. 2006). · cites it 4× “) That cannot be said of the official-proceedings privilege (Civ. Code, §47) involved in Hackethal, supra, 24 Cal.”

Oren Royal Oaks Venture v. Greenberg, Bernard, Weiss & Karma Inc., 728 P.2d 1202 (Cal. 1986). · cites it 6× “In this case we must determine what role the statutory "privilege" for statements made in the course of a judicial proceeding (Civ. Code, § 47, subd. 2 [hereafter § 47(2)]) [1] plays in an abuse of process action.”

Show all 1,205 citing cases →

— Cal. Civil Code § 47(1) — 1 case

Werner v. S. California Associated Newpapers, 216 P.2d 825 (Cal. 1950).

— Cal. Civil Code § 47(2) — 16 cases

Oren Royal Oaks Venture v. Greenberg, Bernard, Weiss & Karma Inc., 728 P.2d 1202 (Cal. 1986). “In this case we must determine what role the statutory "privilege" for statements made in the course of a judicial proceeding (Civ. Code, § 47, subd. 2 [hereafter § 47(2)]) [1] plays in an abuse of process action.”

Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche, 74 P.3d 737 (Cal. 2003). “16 to malicious prosecution claims would have essentially the same effect of denying malicious prosecution victims a remedy as would applying the litigation privilege (Civ. Code, § 47, subd. (b)); hence, for the same reasons malicious prosecution claims are exempt from…”

Silberg v. Anderson, 786 P.2d 365 (Cal. 1990).

Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman v. Cohen, 146 Cal. App. 3d 200 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983).

Gen-Probe, Inc. v. Amoco Corp., Inc., 926 F. Supp. 948 (S.D. Cal. 1996).

— Cal. Civil Code § 47(3) — 9 cases

Brown v. Kelly Broad. Co., 771 P.2d 406 (Cal. 1989).

Clement v. Am. Greetings Corp., 636 F. Supp. 1326 (S.D. Cal. 1986).

Barry v. Time, Inc., 584 F. Supp. 1110 (N.D. Cal. 1984).

Rancho La Costa, Inc. v. Superior Court, 6 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1351 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980).

Sedore v. Recorder Pub. Co., 716 A.2d 1196 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1998).

— Cal. Civil Code § 47(4) — 1 case

Crane v. Arizona Repub., 729 F. Supp. 698 (C.D. Cal. 1989).

— Cal. Civil Code § 47(B) — 1 case

Smith v. California Dep't of High. Patrol, 75 F. Supp. 3d 1173 (N.D. Cal. 2014).

— Cal. Civil Code § 47(a) — 10 cases

Ananiev v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 968 F. Supp. 2d 123 (D.D.C. 2013).

Jadwin v. Cnty. of Kern, 610 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (E.D. Cal. 2009).

Philip M. McQuirk v. Louis Kevin Donnelley, Sheriff Glenn Cnty. Glenn Cnty., 189 F.3d 793 (9th Cir. 1999).

Estakhrian v. Obenstine, 233 F. Supp. 3d 824 (C.D. Cal. 2017).

Buzayan v. City of Davis, 927 F. Supp. 2d 893 (E.D. Cal. 2013).

— Cal. Civil Code § 47(b) — 153 cases

W. Michael Kimes J. Colette Boykin v. Peter G. Stone, Judge, Superior Court Robert L. Mezzetti, II Henry Mariani Robert MacHado, 84 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 1996). “The Attorney Defendants joined in Stone’s motion, and also moved for dismissal on the ground that their actions were protected by Cal.Civ.Code § 47, the litigation privilege.”

Stephan Pardi v. Kaiser Found. Hospitals, 389 F.3d 840 (9th Cir. 2004). “The district court also concluded that Kaiser’s report to the RCB and subsequent participation in the DCA’s investigation were privileged under California Civil Code § 47(b), which establishes an absolute litigation privilege for communications made in the course of litigation.”

Tarla Makaeff v. Trump Univ., Llc, 715 F.3d 254 (9th Cir. 2013).

Meridian Proj. Sys., Inc. v. Hardin Constr. Co., 404 F. Supp. 2d 1214 (E.D. Cal. 2005).

Contreras v. Corinthian Vigor Ins. Brokerage, Inc., 25 F. Supp. 2d 1053 (N.D. Cal. 1998).

— Cal. Civil Code § 47(b)(1) — 3 cases

Flores v. Emerich & Fike, 416 F. Supp. 2d 885 (E.D. Cal. 2006).

Mezzetti v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 346 F. Supp. 2d 1058 (N.D. Cal. 2004).

Loggins v. Leland Stanford Junior Univ. (N.D. Cal. 2024).

— Cal. Civil Code § 47(b)(2) — 18 cases

Matsuura v. EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 73 P.3d 687 (Haw. 2003).

Oei v. N. Star Capital Acquisitions, LLC, 486 F. Supp. 2d 1089 (C.D. Cal. 2006).

Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon Tech., AG, 304 F. Supp. 2d 812 (E.D. Va. 2004).

Kearney v. Foley & Lardner, LLP, 590 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2009).

Johnson v. Jp Morgan Chase Bank Dba Chase Manhatt., 536 F. Supp. 2d 1207 (E.D. Cal. 2008).

— Cal. Civil Code § 47(b)(3) — 8 cases

Baca v. Moreno Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 936 F. Supp. 719 (C.D. Cal. 1996).

Johnson v. Symantec Corp., 58 F. Supp. 2d 1107 (N.D. Cal. 1999).

Mezzetti v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 346 F. Supp. 2d 1058 (N.D. Cal. 2004).

Baca v. Moreno Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 936 F. Supp. 718 (C.D. Cal. 1996).

Morales v. Coop. of Am. Physicians, Inc., Mut. Prot. Trust, 180 F.3d 1060 (1999).

— Cal. Civil Code § 47(b)(4) — 2 cases

La Jolla Grp. II v. Bruce, 211 Cal. App. 4th 461 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012).

Rowland Martin, Jr. v. Edward L. Bravenec & 1216 West Ave., Inc. (Tex. App. 2015).

— Cal. Civil Code § 47(b)(5) — 1 case

Tye v. Papp CA4/2 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024).

— Cal. Civil Code § 47(c) — 48 cases

Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc., 929 N.W.2d 868 (Minn. 2019).

sdv/acci, Inc. v. at & T Corp., 522 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2008).

Glenn K. Jackson Inc., Dba Jackson & Donahue Glenn K. Jackson v. Richard Roe Stuart, Maue, Mitchell & James, 273 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 2001).

Sanchez v. Lane Bryant, Inc., 123 F. Supp. 3d 1238 (C.D. Cal. 2015).

Coastal Abstract Serv., Inc. v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., John M. Hollenbeck, 173 F.3d 725 (1st Cir. 1999).

— Cal. Civil Code § 47(c)(1) — 4 cases

Glenn K. Jackson Inc., Dba Jackson & Donahue Glenn K. Jackson v. Richard Roe Stuart, Maue, Mitchell & James, 273 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 2001).

Rockridge Trust v. Wells Fargo, N.A., 985 F. Supp. 2d 1110 (N.D. Cal. 2013).

Susilo v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 796 F. Supp. 2d 1177 (C.D. Cal. 2011).

Harkonen v. Fleming, 880 F. Supp. 2d 1071 (N.D. Cal. 2012).

— Cal. Civil Code § 47(d) — 7 cases

Microsoft Corp. v. Yokohama Telecom Corp., 993 F. Supp. 782 (C.D. Cal. 1998).

Crowe v. Cnty. of San Diego, 242 F. Supp. 2d 740 (S.D. Cal. 2003).

Adobe Sys. Inc. v. Christenson, 891 F. Supp. 2d 1194 (D. Nev. 2012).

ShotSpotter Inc. v. VICE Media, LLC (Del. Super. Ct. 2022).

Heitkoetter v. Domm (E.D. Cal. 2024).

— Cal. Civil Code § 47(d)(1) — 1 case

Jiang v. Nbcuiversal Media, LLC (N.D. Cal. 2025).

— Cal. Civil Code § 47(e) — 1 case

Vackar v. Package Mach. Co., 841 F. Supp. 310 (N.D. Cal. 1993).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.