The California Court of Appeal recently ruled in favor of Substack, Inc. and journalist Jack Poulson in a privacy lawsuit brought by Maury Blackman. The court's decision, filed on September 29, 2026, centers on the balance between privacy rights and freedom of the press, affirming that truthful information about public figures can be published without legal repercussions. This ruling is significant as it reinforces First Amendment protections in the context of privacy claims.
The case, Blackman v. Substack, involves Blackman, who was arrested in December 2021 for felony domestic violence. Although the charges were never pursued and the arrest record was sealed under California law, the San Francisco Police Department released the investigative report to a third party. This report was later shared with Poulson, who wrote about Blackman’s arrest in his online newsletter. Blackman subsequently filed a lawsuit against Poulson and Substack, claiming that the publication of the sealed arrest report violated his privacy rights.
The dispute escalated to the California Court of Appeal after the trial court granted the defendants' motions to strike Blackman's complaint under California's anti-SLAPP statute, which is designed to prevent lawsuits that chill free speech on public issues. The trial court found that Blackman's claims arose from protected activity and were barred by the First Amendment and the Communications Decency Act.
In the ruling, the court emphasized the importance of the First Amendment in protecting the publication of truthful information about matters of public significance. The court stated, “If a newspaper lawfully obtains truthful information about a matter of public significance then state officials may not constitutionally punish publication of the information.” This principle, derived from previous Supreme Court rulings, underlines the court's decision to uphold the trial court's order.
The California Court of Appeal's ruling confirmed that Blackman's claims were related to Poulson's reporting on a public figure involved in a company with government contracts. The court highlighted that the character and trustworthiness of business leaders in such positions are of public significance. The court noted, “The character and trustworthiness of the leader of a business with contracts with the U.S. government and a security clearance can be of any less public significance.”
Additionally, the court ruled that the First Amendment protects the defendants from Blackman's claims, stating that the publication of truthful information about public figures does not violate privacy rights when that information has been lawfully obtained. The court also found that the Communications Decency Act protected Substack and Tech Inquiry from liability for the content published by Poulson.
This ruling has implications for journalists and publishers, as it reinforces the legal protections afforded to them when reporting on matters of public interest. It underscores the notion that the public has a right to know about the actions and character of individuals in positions of power, especially those with governmental ties. The decision may encourage more investigative journalism, as it clarifies the boundaries of privacy rights in relation to public discourse.
Moving forward, this ruling could set a precedent for similar cases involving the intersection of privacy rights and freedom of the press. It signals to other potential plaintiffs that claims based on privacy may not hold up in court if the information in question is deemed to be of public significance and is obtained lawfully.
Blackman has the option to appeal the decision to the California Supreme Court. However, details on whether such an appeal will be pursued were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case could influence future litigation involving privacy claims against journalists and media companies, shaping the legal landscape for reporting on public figures.