* Overview: Bad-Faith C&D Letters

Not all cease and desist letters are legitimate. Some are sent in bad faith to intimidate, harass, or coerce payment through legally baseless threats. These abusive letters share common characteristics that make them identifiable--and legally vulnerable.

Intimidation Tactic

Many bad-faith C&Ds are designed to frighten recipients into compliance without any intention of actually filing suit.

Economic Coercion

The sender hopes you will pay or capitulate rather than spend money defending yourself, even when their claims lack merit.

You Have Defenses

California law provides robust protections against frivolous litigation and abusive legal threats, including fee-shifting.

What Makes a C&D Letter "Bad Faith"?

A cease and desist letter crosses into bad-faith territory when it:

  • Makes legally baseless claims the sender knows are unenforceable
  • Threatens consequences disproportionate to any actual harm
  • Couples legal threats with demands for payment or non-legal concessions
  • Uses threats to government agencies as leverage for private disputes
  • Demands overbroad remedies designed to silence rather than remedy actual harm
  • Misrepresents the law or facts to create false urgency
$450
Bad-Faith C&D Response

Professional analysis of the letter, identification of bad-faith indicators, and strategic response with anti-SLAPP warnings.

Schedule Review

* Red Flags: Spotting Bad-Faith Letters

These indicators suggest a cease and desist letter may be abusive or sent in bad faith. The more red flags present, the more likely the letter is designed to intimidate rather than address legitimate legal concerns.

* Threats to Report to Immigration Authorities

Threatening to report someone to ICE or USCIS unless they pay money or comply with demands is a serious red flag. This converts a civil dispute into potential extortion.

"Unless you pay $50,000 immediately, we will report your immigration status to the appropriate authorities."

* Threats to Licensing Boards Tied to Payment

Threatening to report a professional to their licensing board (medical, legal, engineering) unless they pay a settlement is coercive and potentially extortionate.

"We will file a complaint with the Medical Board of California unless you agree to our settlement terms within 10 days."

* Threats to Report to Police or IRS Tied to Money

Using threats of criminal prosecution or tax reporting as leverage to extract payment transforms a civil matter into potential criminal extortion.

"Pay us $25,000 or we will report your activities to the District Attorney and the IRS."

* Vague Reputational Destruction Threats

"I will destroy you online" or similar threats without specific legal claims are designed to intimidate, not address legitimate grievances.

"If you do not comply, we will make sure everyone in the industry knows what you did. Your reputation will never recover."

* Demands to Sign Confessions or Consent Judgments

Requiring you to sign one-sided admissions of liability, stipulated judgments, or confessions as a condition of not suing is coercive and unusual.

"Execute the attached Stipulation of Liability admitting your wrongdoing and agreeing to pay $100,000, or we will file suit Monday."

* Overbroad Takedown or Destruction Demands

Demands to remove ALL mentions of a person or company, destroy ALL evidence or communications, or cease ALL commentary go far beyond legitimate remedies.

"Remove all references to our client from the internet, destroy all emails and documents, and never mention their name publicly again."

* Extremely Short or Unreasonable Deadlines

Demanding compliance within 24-48 hours, or setting deadlines that fall on weekends or holidays, suggests the goal is to prevent reasoned response.

"You have until 5 PM tomorrow to comply with all demands or litigation will commence."

* Misrepresentation of Law or Consequences

False claims about mandatory minimum damages, guaranteed prison time, or automatic outcomes reveal bad faith or incompetence.

"Under federal law, you WILL be sentenced to 5 years in prison and fined $500,000. There is no defense to this claim."

Document Everything

Keep copies of the original letter, envelope (for postmark), any follow-up communications, and your response. If the sender's conduct crosses into extortion, this documentation becomes critical evidence.

* The Extortion Boundary

California Penal Code sections 518-527 define extortion as obtaining property through threats. A cease and desist letter that crosses certain lines may constitute criminal extortion, regardless of whether the sender is an attorney.

California Penal Code Section 518
"Extortion is the obtaining of property or other consideration from another, with his or her consent... induced by a wrongful use of force or fear."
California Penal Code Section 519
Fear sufficient to constitute extortion includes threats to: (1) do an unlawful injury to the person or property; (2) accuse the individual of a crime; (3) expose or impute any deformity, disgrace, or crime; (4) expose a secret affecting the person.

Flatley v. Mauro: The Leading Case

Flatley v. Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299

The California Supreme Court held that litigation-related communications that constitute criminal extortion are NOT protected by the litigation privilege. In this case, an attorney's demand letter threatening to report the recipient to immigration authorities unless a large settlement was paid constituted extortion as a matter of law.

Key holding: "The litigation privilege does not apply to communications that constitute criminal extortion."

What Crosses the Line?

Conduct Likely Legal Potentially Extortion
Threatening civil lawsuit over disputed claims YES NO
Demanding damages you believe are owed YES NO
Threatening to report crime to police (related to dispute) MAYBE MAYBE
Threatening immigration report unless payment made NO YES
Threatening to "expose secrets" unless settlement paid NO YES
Threatening criminal prosecution tied to money demand NO YES

If You Receive an Extortionate Letter

  • Do NOT pay money or comply with demands
  • Preserve the original letter and envelope
  • Consider reporting to law enforcement
  • If from an attorney, consider reporting to the State Bar
  • Consult with an attorney about your options

Litigation Privilege: Protection and Limits

California Civil Code Section 47 provides broad immunity for statements made in judicial proceedings or in preparation for litigation. However, this privilege has limits.

California Civil Code Section 47(b)
Privileged publications include those made "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."

Privilege DOES Protect

Good-faith demand letters asserting legal claims, even if those claims are ultimately unsuccessful.

Privilege Does NOT Protect

Criminal conduct (extortion), fraud, communications unrelated to litigation, or abuse of process.

* Anti-SLAPP: Your Fee-Shifting Deterrent

California's anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16) provides a powerful defense against frivolous lawsuits filed to silence protected speech. If someone threatens to sue you over protected speech, anti-SLAPP is your leverage.

California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16(b)(1)
"A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person's right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike."

How Anti-SLAPP Protects You

Early Dismissal

Anti-SLAPP motions must be filed within 60 days and are heard on an expedited basis. If granted, the case is dismissed before expensive discovery.

Timeline: Motion filed within 60 days of service; hearing within 30 days of filing.

Mandatory Attorney Fee Award

If you prevail on an anti-SLAPP motion, the court MUST award you attorney fees and costs. This fee-shifting creates a powerful deterrent against frivolous suits.

CCP 425.16(c)(1): "A prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover his or her attorney's fees and costs."

Discovery Stay

All discovery is automatically stayed once an anti-SLAPP motion is filed, preventing the plaintiff from using the lawsuit for harassment or information gathering.

CCP 425.16(g): "All discovery proceedings in the action shall be stayed upon the filing of a notice of motion."

What Speech is Protected?

Type of Speech Anti-SLAPP Protection
Online reviews of businesses STRONG - Public issue
Criticism of public figures STRONG - Public interest
Commentary on matters of public concern STRONG - Protected speech
Complaints to government agencies STRONG - Petition right
Statements in connection with litigation STRONG - Petition right
Purely private commercial disputes LIMITED - May not qualify

Using Anti-SLAPP as Leverage

When responding to a bad-faith C&D, mentioning anti-SLAPP creates a powerful deterrent. The sender must consider that filing a frivolous lawsuit could result in paying YOUR attorney fees, which often range from $30,000 to $100,000 or more in anti-SLAPP cases.

* Safe Response Framework

When responding to a potentially bad-faith C&D letter, structure your response to protect your rights while avoiding unnecessary escalation. This five-part framework provides a template.

1

Dispute the Factual Basis

Challenge any factual misrepresentations in their letter. If they claim you made false statements, assert that your statements were true. If they mischaracterize your conduct, correct the record. Do not admit facts you dispute, but do not lie.

2

Request Substantiation

Demand they identify the specific legal claims they are asserting, the specific statements or conduct at issue, the specific damages allegedly suffered, and any evidence supporting their claims. Vague allegations do not deserve detailed responses.

3

Refuse Improper Threats

If the letter contains threats that cross into extortion territory (immigration, criminal prosecution, licensing board tied to payment), explicitly reject those threats. Note that such conduct may itself give rise to claims against the sender.

4

Preserve Defenses and Counterclaims

Reserve your right to assert all available defenses (First Amendment, anti-SLAPP, truth, opinion, public interest) and counterclaims (abuse of process, malicious prosecution, extortion, intentional infliction of emotional distress). Cite anti-SLAPP fee-shifting.

5

Offer a Narrow Path to Resolution (Optional)

If appropriate, offer a limited, reasonable resolution that does not require you to abandon protected speech or pay unwarranted sums. This demonstrates good faith while maintaining your position.

What NOT to Include

  • Admissions of facts you dispute
  • Apologies that could be construed as admitting liability
  • Emotional or inflammatory language
  • Threats you do not intend to follow through on
  • Agreement to overbroad demands
  • Promises to destroy evidence

* When to Ignore vs. When to Respond

Not every cease and desist letter requires a response. Deciding whether to ignore, briefly acknowledge, or fully respond depends on several factors.

Decision Framework

*

Consider Ignoring If:

Letter is from individual (no attorney); sender is unknown or unserious; claims are clearly frivolous; no indication of actual lawsuit intent; responding might escalate a non-threat into a real dispute; sender appears to be fishing for information.

*

Respond If:

Letter is from an attorney; sender is a business or person who might actually sue; claims have some colorable basis; letter was sent to your employer or business partners; deadline is approaching; you want to create a record of your position; you want to deter suit with anti-SLAPP warning.

*

Escalate If:

Letter contains extortionate threats; sender contacted third parties with false claims; letter was sent to your employer causing harm; you want to go on offense; sender's conduct warrants State Bar complaint; criminal extortion may have occurred.

Risks of Each Approach

Approach Benefits Risks
Ignore No cost; no engagement; does not dignify frivolous claims Silence could be misinterpreted; no record of your position; no anti-SLAPP warning issued
Brief Acknowledgment Creates record; shows confidence; minimal engagement May invite further correspondence; does not fully address claims
Full Response Creates strong record; deters suit with anti-SLAPP warning; shows you are prepared to defend Costs time/money; may escalate; provides information to sender
Escalate/Counterattack May end harassment; recovers damages; deters future abuse Highest cost; commits you to litigation; requires strong facts

* Response Templates

Customize these templates based on your specific situation. Consider consulting an attorney before sending.

Template 1: Brief Rejection of Bad-Faith Claims
RE: Your Letter Dated [DATE] I have received your letter making various demands and threats. I reject your demands in their entirety. Your letter mischaracterizes [my statements/my conduct/the facts]. The claims you assert lack legal merit, and I believe you know this. Any lawsuit filed on these baseless claims will be met with a motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP statute (CCP 425.16), which provides for mandatory attorney fee awards to prevailing defendants. I will also evaluate counterclaims for abuse of process and related torts. I will not be intimidated by meritless legal threats. [Your Name]
Template 2: Response to Extortionate Threats
RE: Your Letter Dated [DATE] - Notice of Improper Conduct I have received your letter dated [DATE]. Your letter contains threats to [report me to immigration authorities / file criminal complaints / report to licensing board / etc.] unless I [pay money / agree to settlement terms / etc.]. These threats, coupled with demands for payment, may constitute criminal extortion under California Penal Code Sections 518-527. I refer you to Flatley v. Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299, in which the California Supreme Court held that the litigation privilege does not protect communications constituting criminal extortion. Attorney conduct of this nature has resulted in State Bar discipline and civil liability. I categorically reject your demands. I am preserving this correspondence as evidence. If you continue this course of conduct, I will consider all available remedies, including but not limited to: - Reporting this matter to law enforcement - Filing a complaint with the State Bar of California - Pursuing civil claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and other torts Govern yourself accordingly. [Your Name]
Template 3: Full Defense with Anti-SLAPP Warning
RE: Response to Cease and Desist Letter Dated [DATE] I have received your letter demanding that I [cease making statements about / remove content regarding / etc.] your client [NAME]. FACTUAL RESPONSE Your letter mischaracterizes the relevant facts. [Specifically describe how they mischaracterize facts, correct the record with your version.] The statements I made are [true and documented / protected opinion / fair comment on matters of public concern]. REQUEST FOR SUBSTANTIATION Before I can evaluate your claims further, please provide: 1. The specific statements you allege are actionable, with exact quotes 2. The specific legal theory under which each statement is actionable 3. The specific facts demonstrating falsity (if claiming defamation) 4. Evidence of actual damages suffered 5. Authority for the proposition that my statements are not protected speech LEGAL DEFENSES Any lawsuit filed on these claims will be met with vigorous defense, including: 1. Anti-SLAPP Motion (CCP 425.16): My statements concern [a matter of public interest / protected petition activity] and qualify for anti-SLAPP protection. I will file a special motion to strike within 60 days of any complaint, seeking dismissal and MANDATORY attorney fees. 2. First Amendment and California Constitution Art. I, Sec. 2: My speech is constitutionally protected. 3. Truth/Substantial Truth: [If applicable: The statements are true and I can prove it.] 4. Opinion Privilege: [If applicable: The statements are protected opinion, not actionable fact.] COUNTERCLAIMS I reserve my right to pursue counterclaims including but not limited to abuse of process, malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of emotional distress if you file a frivolous lawsuit. ANTI-SLAPP FEE WARNING Under CCP 425.16(c), a prevailing defendant on an anti-SLAPP motion is entitled to recover attorney fees and costs. Fee awards in similar cases range from $30,000 to over $100,000. I strongly encourage you to advise your client of these risks before proceeding. CONCLUSION I will not be silenced by baseless legal threats. If your client has suffered actual harm from demonstrably false statements of fact, I am willing to review specific evidence. But overbroad demands to cease protected speech will be rejected. [Your Name]

Get Professional Help

An attorney response on letterhead often stops abusive threats. Protect yourself with a professional defense.

Schedule Consultation - $450

* Legal Resources

Key Statutes

  • CCP 425.16: California Anti-SLAPP statute
  • Penal Code 518-527: California extortion laws
  • Civil Code 47: Litigation privilege
  • U.S. Constitution, Amendment I: Free speech protection
  • California Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 2: State free speech protection

Key Cases

  • Flatley v. Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299: Extortion exception to litigation privilege
  • Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82: Anti-SLAPP standards and scope
  • Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376: Anti-SLAPP applies to mixed causes of action
  • FilmOn.com Inc. v. DoubleVerify Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 133: Public interest prong of anti-SLAPP

Additional Resources