This decision reverses an order denying an Anti-SLAPP motion by the author of a Facebook post that was later republished by BBC’s Vietnamese Service about plaintiff, a self-made and proclaimed billionaire who co-founded a large Vietnamese company and dated a prominent Vietnamese model, thereby making himself a public figure in the Vietnamese community. The defendant showed that his article was protested speech since it contributed to a public dialogue (through comments on the article) about the plaintiff, a public figure. Also, plaintiff had allowed the order granting the BBC’s Anti-SLAPP motion to become final, and thus was collaterally estopped by that order’s finding that the speech was protected. (See Direct Shopping Network, LLC v. James (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1551, 1562-1563.) Plaintiff could not show that the article’s statements about him were provably false and defamatory. The statement that he exported blood products from China to the US was not defamatory on its face, and the average reader would not know that importation was illegal, so it was not defamatory. Statements that plaintiff’s character was corrupted by the sickening culture of Vietnam and China, that he had used the young model, and that he had not contributed to society as other billionaires had, were all non-actionable hyperbole. As to the one provably false statement that plaintiff had invested $6 million in Vietnam, plaintiff had not shown that he, as a public figure, could prove actual malice–i.e., knowledge of falsity. Since plaintiff was a public celebrity, he also could not state a viable claim for false light invasion of privacy.