This decision holds that the Anti-SLAPP motion in this case was properly denied because the suit fits within CCP 425.17(b)’s exception for suits in the public interest.  The plaintiff did not seek any relief greater than or different from the relief sought for the general public or a class of which the plaintiff was a member. Seeking individualized relief, such as damages, does not remove the case from the exempted category unless the plaintiff seeks a remedy which he doesn’t seek on behalf of all class members.  Plaintiff’s suit, if successful, would enforce an important right affecting the public interest and confer a significant benefit on the general public–having sued to enforce privacy rights including against the unauthorized use of a person’s name for commercial exploitation.  Also, private enforcement is both necessary and disproportionately burdensome.  That there was no public enforcement is enough to demonstrate the need for private enforcement.  The small amount of damages likely recoverable in the action on an individual basis shows that the suit is disproportionately burdensome.