Under Lab. Code 1138, as under 29 USC 106, a union cannot be held liable for conduct on a picket line except on “clear proof” of the union’s “actual participation in, or actual authorization of those acts.” On an Anti-SLAPP motion to strike, the court must take that higher burden of proof into consideration in weighing, on the second step of the Anti-SLAPP analysis, the employer has shown a probability of success on the merits on its claims against the union. Here, the employer’s evidence didn’t satisfy that higher standard. There was no evidence that union officials participated in the picketing activities or knew of the loud noises, blockages of entry into the store or other wrongful acts of picketers. Nor had Macy’s notified union officials of these problems So there was no evidence, and certainly not clear proof, that the union had authorized or participated in the illegal picketing activities. Accordingly, the union’s Anti-SLAPP motion should have been granted.