The Hollywood Creative Partnership has actually submitted a defamation claim versus the Critics Choice Association originating from CCA’s brand-new restriction on its participants coming from both companies.
In court files submitted Tuesday in Los Angeles, the HCA declared the CCA made an “attempt to boycott and steal members of the HCA.”
Problem in between the companies started the week after the 2024 Critics Choice Honors, when CCA charged HCA of impact peddling– particularly, of informing workshops and the reps of specific candidates that it had a number of participants that were additionally participants of the Critics Choice Association.
CCA back then notified participants that in order to stay component of the company in great standing, they should surrender fromHCA
CCA contacted its participants, “The reason CCA has taken this action is that we have evidence that a representative of the HCA has improperly suggested to at least one studio (and we suspect more) that it could influence Critics Choice Awards voting in a way that led that studio to reach out to CCA and request that action be taken to protect the integrity of our awards.”
On Jan. 18 the HCA totally contested the insurance claim. An HCA speaker informed TheWrap, “During these conversations, we acknowledged that our awards ceremonies took place during a key voting period for various organizations and noted that several of our members belonged to several guilds and organizations; ones that we champion and support.”
HCA duplicated these rejections of misdeed in the claim, claiming, “At no point did HCA say or do anything other than, as is common, suggest that personal appearances at its award shows might be beneficial to studio talent. In fact, as CCA well knows, there is nothing unusual or improper about an entertainment trade association pointing out that there may be benefits to studios and talent from networking with voters.”
“CCA deliberately sought to interfere with HCA’s relationships with members, of existential value to HCA. HCA reinforced its interference with its false accusations of voting improprieties it asserted were committed by HCA,” the claim includes.
The claim implicates CCA of: Profession libel and defamation; offense of the Cartwright Act (The golden state’s antitrust legislation); deliberate disturbance with possible financial benefit; and offense of The golden state’s unreasonable competitors legislation.
The claim requires an order that calls for CCA to withdraw its allegation and pull back the need its participants stop HCA, countervailing and compensatory damages in addition to three-way the granted problems, protection of lawful costs and various other problems “the court deems fair and equitable.”
Pamela Chelin added to this record.
