Luna v. Top Dawg: California's doxxing law on appeal, explained

California gave doxxing victims a civil lawsuit in 2025. Civil Code section 1708.89 lets a person sue someone who publishes their personal information to put them in fear for their safety and to get others to harass or harm them. On October 8, 2026, the Court of Appeal decided what we believe is the first published appeal under that law. The plaintiffs lost. The reasons matter for anyone thinking about bringing a claim like this.

What happened

In December 2024, two women sued Top Dawg Entertainment, a Los Angeles record label, and several people connected to it, alleging sexual misconduct and unpaid work. These are allegations; no court has decided whether they are true. The women filed under the pseudonyms Jane Doe and Jane Roe, but they never asked the court for permission to proceed that way.

Their lawyers issued a press release about the lawsuit, still using the pseudonyms. The next day the label issued its own press release calling the case a shakedown and naming both women. Four days later the women added a doxxing claim, alleging the label had doxed them by publishing their names.

The label filed an anti SLAPP motion, which asks a court to throw out early a claim based on protected speech unless the plaintiff can show it has some merit. The trial judge denied it. The label appealed.

What the court decided

1. The press release was protected speech. A public statement about a pending lawsuit is made "in connection with an issue under consideration" by a court, and allegations of misconduct at a well known label are a matter of public interest. Both fit the anti SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(e)(2) and (e)(4)). The plaintiffs had conceded that point in the trial court. On appeal they argued the "gravamen" of a doxxing claim is distributing personal information, not speech. The court rejected that approach and looked at what act the claim was actually based on: the press release.

2. The fair report privilege defeated the claim. California protects a fair and true report about a court proceeding (Civ. Code § 47(d)), and the privilege is absolute: motive does not matter. The only statement the women challenged was that they were the plaintiffs. That was accurate. The rest of the press release, including the "shakedown" language, was not what they sued over, so it did not change the result.

3. Using a pseudonym is not the same as having permission to use one. The public has a constitutional right of access to court proceedings, which includes knowing who the parties are. Unless a specific statute authorizes it, a plaintiff files under a pseudonym conditionally and then must ask the court for permission. The judge applies an "overriding interest" test before allowing it. Because these plaintiffs never asked, the court said, the label broke no court order or rule by naming them. The court added that the women "may have had a strong argument to remain anonymous," but it was up to them to make that request as soon as possible.

The court reversed and told the trial court to strike the doxxing claim. The rest of the lawsuit was not part of this appeal.

What the court did not decide

The court expressly did not decide whether naming the plaintiffs counted as doxing under section 1708.89, or whether the First Amendment would bar the claim. So the hardest question about the statute, how a victim proves the intent it requires, is still untested on appeal.

What this means if you are thinking about a doxxing claim

• Speech about a lawsuit is hard to sue over. Statements about a court case are protected by the anti SLAPP statute, and accurate reports of what is in a case are protected by an absolute privilege. A claim built on that kind of statement is likely to be struck, and a defendant who wins that motion is entitled to attorney fees (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(c)(1)).
• If you need anonymity, ask the court for it at the start. Do not assume a pseudonym on the complaint protects you. Ask a lawyer about filing the motion for permission right away.
• Different facts, different questions. Posting a home address or phone number with a call for others to show up is not a report about a lawsuit. This decision does not decide how the statute applies to that.

Why we think the law still needs work

Luna shows one limit of section 1708.89: it runs into protected speech about court cases. The bigger problem it never reached is the intent standard. A victim must prove the poster meant to put them in fear and to cause imminent harm or harassment by someone else, which is very hard to show. Oregon and Washington use broader standards. Our Proposal 5 would amend the California statute along those lines, with written protection for reporting and public records. Nothing in it would remove the protection Luna applied to accurate reports about lawsuits. The two page policy brief summarizes it.