statute imposes requirement in Texas

2023If Defendants’ 7 Id. § 27.001(3). “‘Communication’ includes the making or submitting of a statement or document in any form or medium, including oral, visual, written, audiovisual, or electronic.” Id. § 27.001(1). 8 Id. § 27.001(7)(B), (D). 9See Lippincott v. Whisenhunt, 462 S.W.3d 507, 509 (Tex. 2015) (“The plain language of the statute imposes no requirement that the form of the communication be public.”). 3 communications were “made in connection with” the Astros, there could be no doubt whatsoever that the Act applies to Partners’ claims.

2022Moreover, private communications are covered by the TCPA provided that they were made in connection with a matter of “public concern.” See Coleman, 512 S.W.3d at 901 ; see also Lippincott v. Whisenhunt, 462 S.W.3d 507, 509 (Tex. 2015) (noting that the “plain language of the statute imposes no requirement that the form of the communication be public”).

2018Had the Legislature intended to limit the Act to publicly communicated speech, it could have easily added language to that effect.”); TGS–NOPEC Geophysical Co. v. Combs, 340 S.W.3d 432, 439 (Tex. 2011) (“We presume that the Legislature chooses a statute’s language with care, including each word chosen for a purpose, while purposefully omitting words not chosen.”).

2015Had the Legislature intended to limit the Act to publicly communicated speech, it could have easily added language to that effect.”); TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Co. v. Combs, 340 S.W.3d 432, 439 (Tex.2011) (“We presume that the Legislature chooses a statute’s language with care, including each word chosen for a purpose, while purposefully omitting words not chosen.”).

2022Moreover, private communications are covered by the TCPA provided that they were made in connection with a matter of “public concern.” See Coleman, 512 S.W.3d at 901 ; see also Lippincott v. Whisenhunt, 462 S.W.3d 507, 509 (Tex. 2015) (noting that the “plain language of the statute imposes no requirement that the form of the communication be public”).

2021Appellees contend that appellants have failed to show that appellants’ representations concerning the color of the water in the Beechwood subdivision is a matter of “public interest.” Appellees argue that in this case the “statements at issue relate to a small group of individuals” and that there is “no evidence . . . that the public at large has any interest in this private dispute.” Appellees contend that the “allegations arise from and are related to a private communication, within the private offices of the Company.” There is no requirement that the statements be made “publicly.” See Exxon