[91]*91Opinion
PERLUSS, P. J.
The law firm of Phillips & Cohen LLP issued a celebratory press release following the verdict in false claims act litigation in which the jury found J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc. (J-M), had knowingly misrepresented to Phillips & Cohen’s governmental clients over a 10-year period that its polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe had been manufactured and tested in a manner that assured it had the strength and durability required by applicable industry standards. J-M responded by suing Phillips & Cohen for defamation and trade libel. The trial court denied Phillips & Cohen’s special motion to strike the complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (section 425.16), finding it was a question of fact for the jury whether the press release was privileged as a fair and true report of a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Civil Code section 47, subdivision (d). We reverse.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. The False Claims Act Litigation
J-M manufactures and sells PVC pipes used in underground water systems. In 2006 Phillips & Cohen filed a federal qui tarn lawsuit on behalf of a number of states, cities and local water districts asserting J-M had violated applicable false claims acts by knowingly misrepresenting that two types of pipes (C900 and C905) purchased by the plaintiffs had been manufactured in compliance with industry standards established by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) and the Underwriters Laboratories (UL) for long-term strength and durability.1
To certify its pipes met the AWWA and UL standards, J-M had submitted qualification samples for testing. Based on those tests, J-M’s production pipes were eligible to bear the corresponding AWWA and UL marks. However, AWWA and UL require the product to be “continually manufactured in such a manner as to maintain [its] long-term strength and durability” in conformity with the AWWA and UL standards. In other words, a product that bears the AWWA and UL marks must be substantially identical to the previously [92]*92approved qualification samples. This requirement obligates a manufacturer to maintain uniformity in the manufacturing process so that every production pipe satisfies the standard. Any material variation in the process that produces a downward departure from the established standard is prohibited.
Trial of the qui tarn action was to proceed in two phases. The first phase, which started in September 2013, concerned only issues of liability as presented by five representative governmental entity plaintiffs. Causation and damages were deferred to the second phase (if necessary). In its bifurcation order the district court described Phillips & Cohen’s theory of the case: “Plaintiffs allege that J-M falsely represented that (a) all (not just some) J-M pipe satisfied the requirements, rules, and standards of [AWWA and UL] . . . ; and (b) all (not just some) of the pipe was manufactured in a substantially identical manner to the pipe that was originally determined to comply with the standards. Plaintiffs allege that J-M’s statements were false because J-M did not properly manufacture ‘all’ its pipe as represented in (a) and (b) above. Plaintiffs further allege that J-M’s statements were false because J-M did not uniformly test its pipe as represented in (a) and (b) above. Plaintiffs allege that instead, J-M manufactured or tested its pipe in a manner that did not comply with the foregoing industry standards. Plaintiffs allege that, as a result of J-M’s inconsistent and substandard manufacturing and testing, J-M’s customers received a ‘lottery ticket,’ in which there was no assurance that the pipe was made and tested in the manner represented.” The court’s order explained the first jury would decide whether J-M’s manufacturing and testing deficiencies deviated from its representations to such a degree as to render J-M’s representations false and whether, if false, the representations were material and made with the requisite scienter. If the plaintiffs prevailed in the first trial, there would be a second trial to determine, among other things, the damages each governmental entity had suffered as a result of J-M’s false claims.
Consistent with its theory of the case, Phillips & Cohen introduced substantial evidence that J-M manufactured pipes that did not uniformly conform to the AWWA and UL standards. In addition, it introduced evidence that the nonconformance was caused, at least in part, by J-M’s decisions to alter its manufacturing process to meet increased production goals and by paying employee bonuses to achieve these goals. Though the quality of the pipes decreased because of these decisions, J-M nonetheless sold them as if they had met the AWWA and UL specifications.
Throughout trial Phillips & Cohen emphasized this was not a products liability case and that it did not need to demonstrate that J-M pipes sold to the plaintiffs had already failed or to trace specific product defects to specific units of pipe that each plaintiff received. For example, in closing argument [93]*93counsel stated, “J-M falsely represented its compliance with AWWA C905, you know, general compliance. There’s nothing that requires you to figure out if a particular stick of pipe that’s in the ground was falsely marked or not falsely marked. Although, frankly, given the kinds of evidence that you’ve heard, none of their pipe was representative of what they originally qualified and none of it was able to pass UL 1285. So, really, all of the pipe was bad. But it certainly was falsely represented that all our pipe complies with AWWA C900. No question that [the] representation that all our pipe is made in uniform—in a uniform way, that was a representation they were making to their customers and it was clearly not true.”
On November 14, 2013 the jury returned a special verdict in favor of each of the five representative plaintiffs, finding that J-M did “present or caused to be presented to a [government] officer or employee a claim for payment or approval that was false or fraudulent,” that the claim was materially false and that J-M presented the false claim with the requisite intent. The special verdict form also asked the jury to describe why the claims were false. The jury responded with the same answer for every false claim: “J-M falsely represented uniform compliance with AWWA [C900 and] C905 and UL 1285.” The jury also found for each of the 26 identified projects that J-M had acted knowingly and that the misrepresentation of compliance with the industry standards was material.
2. The Press Release
On November 15, 2013, the day after the jury’s verdict, Phillips & Cohen issued a three-and-one-half page, single-spaced press release headlined, “JM Eagle faces billions in damages after jury finds JM liable for making and selling faulty water system pipes.” The press release stated in its first paragraph that “[a] federal jury unanimously agreed last night that [J-M] . . . knowingly manufactured and sold to government entities substandard plastic pipe that was used in water and sewer systems in various states around the country—opening [J-M] up to potentially billions of dollars in damages.” The release referred to the case as a “whistleblower lawsuit” and explained it had been divided into two phases: “The first trial determined whether from 1996 to 2006 [J-M] lied about whether its pipe met strength and durability standards required by government specifications, thereby making it liable for damages under state and local false claims laws.” “A separate trial will be held to determine the amount of damages” for the costs to replace failed pipes and to replace pipes sooner than expected.
3. J-M’s Lawsuit for Defamation and Trade Libel
On February 21, 2014 J-M filed a complaint for defamation and trade libel alleging statements in Phillip & Cohen’s press release that “a federal jury [94]*94unanimously found that J-M manufactured and sold pipe that is ‘faulty,’ ‘substandard,’ ‘weak,’ and ‘shoddy’ ” were “neither a fair nor an accurate report of the proceedings” and grossly misrepresented the jury’s findings. As alleged in the complaint, the issue decided by the federal jury was whether J-M had falsely represented uniform compliance with industry standards. Whether its pipe was substandard or defective was not at issue in phase one of the federal litigation, and the federal plaintiffs had never proved the pipe sold was substandard or defective.
In addition to the headline of the press release, J-M specifically challenged three statements appearing on the first page of the document: (1) The last sentence of the second paragraph, “The trial exposed JM Eagle’s deliberate efforts to cut costs by using shoddy manufacturing practices to make weaker but more profitable polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe.” (2) The third full paragraph, “ ‘States and water districts that are covered by this lawsuit spent $2.2 billion to buy JM Eagle during the 10-year period JM was lying about the long-term strength of the pipe,’ said Eric Havian, an attorney with Phillips & Cohen LLP who argued the case on behalf of the plaintiffs. ‘Those entities now are entitled to recover a substantial portion of that cost plus the cost to replace the shoddy pipe much sooner than expected. This likely will mean damages could total billions of dollars because it’s expensive and disruptive to replace water pipe.’ ” (3) The fifth full paragraph: “ ‘JM Eagle defrauded its customers for 10 years,’ Havian continued. ‘The jury decided that JM Eagle management cared only about the amount of pipe JM produced, not the quality of that pipe. JM Eagle deceived outside inspection agencies and ignored over a decade of failing test results. The jury’s conclusion that JM Eagle committed fraud was based on a lot of evidence.’ ”
4. The Special Motion to Strike
On March 26, 2014 Phillips & Cohen moved to strike the complaint under section 425.16, contending both causes of action were “based upon public statements made describing an ongoing litigation of national importance” and arguing J-M could not show a probability of prevailing on the merits because “[t]he allegedly defamatory and libelous statements at issue are privileged as a true and fair report of ongoing litigation” under Civil Code section 47, subdivision (d), and the statements “are non-actionable statements of opinion.” In opposition J-M conceded Phillips & Cohen had made the threshold showing required by section 425.16 that the two causes of action arose from protected activity but argued it had demonstrated a probability of prevailing because the portions of the press release it challenged were “a gross misrepresentation of the jury’s findings” and not privileged as a fair and true report or as nonactionable statements of opinion.
[95]*95The trial court denied the motion, ruling, “The statement that a jury found [J-M] liable for making and selling faulty water pipes cannot be said—as a matter of law—to be a fair and true report of the jury’s special verdict. The jury found that [J-M] violated the False Claims Act, which is not the same thing as finding that [J-M] made and sold faulty water pipes. At the very least, whether the report was fair and true is a question of fact for the jury.” The court also found that “[a] reasonable fact finder could conclude that this published statement declares or implies a provably false assertion of fact because an examination of the jury instructions and special verdict [shows] the jury did not expressly find that [J-M] was liable for making and selling faulty water system pipes. Rather, the jury found that [J-M] made false representations of uniform compliance. The jury was not asked to find, and did not find, that [J-M’s] water system pipes were faulty.” This, “by implication, leaves open the possibility of non-compliance as to some pipes,” but “the jury did not find that the pipes were all faulty.” A reasonable fact finder “could find that the substance, gist, or sting of [P&C’s] characterization of the jury’s finding that the pipes were faulty was not justified.” Thus, J-M demonstrated a probability of prevailing on its claims.
DISCUSSION
1. Section 425.16: The Anti-SLAPP Statute2
Section 425.16 provides, “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, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.” (§ 425.16, subd. (b)(1).)3
In ruling on a motion under section 425.16, the trial court engages in a familiar two-step process. “First, the court decides whether the defendant [96]*96has made a threshold showing that the challenged cause of action is one arising from protected activity. The moving defendant’s burden is to demonstrate that the act or acts of which the plaintiff complains were taken ‘in furtherance of the [defendant] ’s right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue,’ as defined in the statute. (§425.16, subd. (b)(1).) If the court finds such a showing has been made, it then determines whether the plaintiff has demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the claim. Under section 425.16, subdivision (b)(2), the trial court in making these determinations considers ‘the pleadings, and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based.’ ” (Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53, 67 [124 Cal.Rptr.2d 507, 52 P.3d 685].)
In terms of the so-called threshold issue, the moving party’s burden is to show “the challenged cause of action arises from protected activity.” (Rusheen v. Cohen (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1048, 1056 [39 Cal.Rptr.3d 516, 128 P.3d 713].) “[T]he statutory phrase ‘cause of action . . . arising from’ means simply that the defendant’s act underlying the plaintiff’s cause of action must itself have been an act in furtherance of the right of petition or free speech. [Citation.] In the anti-SLAPP context, the critical point is whether the plaintiff’s cause of action itself was based on an act in furtherance of the defendant’s right of petition or free speech. [Citations.] ‘A defendant meets this burden by demonstrating that the act underlying the plaintiff’s cause [of action] fits one of the categories spelled out in section 425.16, subdivision (e) . . . .’ ” (City of Cotati v. Cashman (2002) 29 Cal.4th 69, 78 [124 Cal.Rptr.2d 519, 52 P.3d 695].)
If the defendant establishes the statute applies, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate a “probability” of prevailing on the claim. (Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc., supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 67.) In deciding the question of potential merit, the trial court properly considers the pleadings and evidentiary submissions of both the plaintiff and the defendant, but may not weigh the credibility or comparative strength of any competing evidence. (Vargas v. City of Salinas (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1, 19-20 [92 Cal.Rptr.3d 286, 205 P.3d 207].) The question is whether the plaintiff presented evidence in opposition to the defendant’s motion that, if believed by the trier of fact, is sufficient to support a judgment in the plaintiff’s favor. (Zamos v. Stroud (2004) 32 Cal.4th 958, 965 [12 Cal.Rptr.3d 54, 87 P.3d 802].) Nonetheless, the court should grant the motion “ ‘if, as a matter of law, the defendant’s evidence supporting the motion defeats the plaintiff’s attempt to establish evidentiary support for the claim.’ ” (Vargas, at p. 20; Zamos, at p. 965.)
The defendant has the burden on the first issue; the plaintiff has the burden on the second issue. (Chodos v. Cole (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 692, 701 [148 [97]*97Cal.Rptr.3d 451]; Kajima Engineering & Construction, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 921, 928 [116 Cal.Rptr.2d 187].) We review the trial court’s rulings independently under a de novo standard of review. (Flatley v. Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299, 325 [46 Cal.Rptr.3d 606, 139 P.3d 2]; Rusheen v. Cohen, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1055.)
2. The Trial Court Erred in Denying the Special Motion to Strike
a. Defamation, trade libel and the fcdr report privilege
“Defamation requires the intentional publication of a false statement of fact that has a natural tendency to injure the plaintiffs reputation or that causes special damage.” (Burrill v. Nair (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 357, 383 [158 Cal.Rptr.3d 332].) The elements of a defamation claim are (1) a publication that is (2) false, (3) defamatory, (4) unprivileged, and (5) has a natural tendency to injure or causes special damage. (Taus v. Loftus (2007) 40 Cal.4th 683, 720 [54 Cal.Rptr.3d 775, 151 P.3d 1185]; Wong v. Jing (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1354, 1369 [117 Cal.Rptr.3d 747].)
Trade libel is an intentional disparagement of the quality of services or product of a business that results in pecuniary damage to the plaintiff. (City of Costa Mesa v. D'Alessio Investments, LLC (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 358, 375-376 [154 Cal.Rptr.3d 698]; Leonardini v. Shell Oil Co. (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 547, 572 [264 Cal.Rptr. 883].) Like defamation, trade libel requires a false statement of fact, not an expression of an opinion. (Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 90, 104 [15 Cal.Rptr.3d 215]; ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 993, 1010 [113 Cal.Rptr.2d 625].) To constitute trade libel the statement must be made with actual malice, that is, with knowledge it was false or with reckless disregard for whether it was true or false. (Melaleuca, Inc. v. Clark (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1350 [78 Cal.Rptr.2d 627].) The plaintiff must also plead and prove it actually suffered some pecuniary loss. (Mann, at p. 109.)
Civil Code section 47, subdivision (d), provides, “A privileged publication or broadcast is one made: [¶] . . . [¶] (d)(1) By a fair and true report in, or a communication to, a public journal, of (A) a judicial, (B) legislative, or (C) other public official proceeding, or (D) of anything said in the course thereof . . . .” Prior to 1997 subdivision (d) applied only to a fair and true report in a public journal. Senate Bill No. 1540 (1995-1996 Reg. Sess.), sponsored by the California Newspapers Publishers Association, amended the provision, effective January 1, 1997, to add “or a communication to,” so the privilege would extend, as it does now, to both a fair and true report in and a communication to a public journal concerning judicial, legislative or other public proceedings. (Stats. 1996, ch. 1055, § 2, pp. 6641-6643.)
[98]*98The Assembly Committee on the Judiciary’s report explained the 1996 amendment, “This bill codifies a type of ‘bridge privilege’ between the litigation privilege and the fair report privilege. It protects fair and true reports to the press of things that occurred or were said in an official proceeding. These statements are protected when originally uttered by the litigation privilege and are protected when published by the press by the fair report privilege. This bill creates the bridge between these two privileges to protect a third party who communicates this already privileged material to the press.” (Assem. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 1540 (1995-1996 Reg. Sess.) as amended June 26, 1996, p. 5.) In its statement of legislative purpose the Legislature declared its intent “to preserve the scarce resources of California’s courts, to avoid using courts for satellite litigation, and to increase public participation in the political, legislative, and judicial processes.” (Stats. 1996, ch. 1055, § 1, p. 6641.)
This “fair report” privilege, if applicable, bars J-M’s claims for both defamation and trade libel. (Rusheen v. Cohen, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1055; see Hawran v. Hixson (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 256, 278 [147 Cal.Rptr.3d 88] [“[i]f Civil Code section 47, subdivision (d) applies, the statement is absolutely privileged regardless of the defendants’ motive for reporting it”]; Sipple v. Foundation for Nat. Progress (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 226, 240 [83 Cal.Rptr.2d 677] [Civ. Code, § 47, subd. (d), “confers an absolute privilege”].)4
b. Application of the fair report privilege
In general, whether a privileged occasion exists within the meaning of Civil Code section 47, subdivision (d), is for the court to decide; whether the report of the official proceedings itself is “fair and true,” provided reasonable minds could disagree as to the effect of the communication on the average reader or listener, is a question of fact for the jury. (Burrill v. Nair, supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at p. 398; Pierce v. San Jose Mercury News (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1626, 1634 [263 Cal.Rptr. 410]; Handelsman v. San Francisco Chronicle (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 381, 386 [90 Cal.Rptr. 188]; but see [99]*99McClatchy Newspapers v. Superior Court (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 961, 976 [234 Cal.Rptr. 702] [reversing denial of summary judgment; although trial court found fairness and truth of newspaper’s report was a controverted issue, “case law indicates this decision is one of law when, as here, there is no dispute as to what occurred in the judicial proceeding reported upon or as to what was contained in the report”].)
Although determining whether a communication is privileged under Civil Code section 47, subdivision (d), may properly be left to a jury in some instances, appellate courts have not been reluctant to decide the fair report privilege applies as a matter of law when the undisputed facts are insufficient to support a judgment for the plaintiff. For example, in Kilgore v. Younger (1982) 30 Cal.3d 770 [180 Cal.Rptr. 657, 640 P.2d 793] plaintiff Kilgore sued former Attorney General Younger and two newspapers following distribution of a report prepared by the Attorney General’s Organized Crime Control Commission that fisted 92 individuals suspected of involvement in a wide variety of organized crime activity in California, including bookmaking, loan-sharking, extortion, theft, drug trafficking, prostitution and murder. The report identified Kilgore by name and address, included his photograph, specifically identified his involvement in providing information on sporting events to bookmakers and stated he had been convicted of bookmaking in the past and had been sentenced to a 14-month federal prison term for conspiracy to commit wire fraud. The two newspapers reported Kilgore was one of the 92 individuals named in the report but, unlike the report itself, did not describe his participation in gambling activity or link him to any other specific organized criminal activity. Kilgore sued for defamation, contending the newspaper articles unfairly suggested he was involved in a wide variety of the criminal activity discussed in the report, rather than only bookmaking. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order sustaining the newspapers’ demurrers as a fair and hue report of a public meeting and dismissing Kilgore’s action as to them: “In our view, the average reader of either paper would reasonably interpret the articles to imply only that Kilgore was connected in some fashion with organized crime. As we see it, this is exactly the import of Attorney General Younger’s release. In other words, we simply do not believe that the average reader would take the articles to intimate that Kilgore was involved in every—or even necessarily more than one—type of organized criminal activity.” (Id. at p. 777; accord, Jennings v. Telegram-Tribune Co. (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 119, 122, 127 [210 Cal.Rptr. 485] [fair report privilege applied as matter of law to newspaper article describing misdemeanor conviction for failing to file income tax returns as “ ‘tax fraud’ ” and “ ‘tax evasion’ ”].)
As summarized by the Supreme Court in Reader’s Digest Assn. v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 244, 262, footnote 13 [208 Cal.Rptr. 137, 690 P.2d 610], in measuring what constitutes “a ‘fair and hue report’ ” the [100]*100defendant is “permit [ted] a certain degree of flexibility/literary license”: “ ‘ “ ‘If the substantial imputations be proved true, a slight inaccuracy in the details will not prevent a judgment for the defendant, if the inaccuracy does not change the complexion of the affair so as to affect the reader of the article differently than the actual truth would.’ ” ’ ” (Ibid.; see GetFugu, Inc. v. Patton Boggs LLP (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 141, 154 [162 Cal.Rptr.3d 831] [“ ‘[m]i-nor inaccuracies do not amount to falsity so long as ‘“the substance, the gist, the sting, of the libelous charge be justified” ’ ”]; Balzaga v. Fox News Network, LLC (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1325, 1337 [93 Cal.Rptr.3d 782] (Balzaga) [“[t]he privilege applies if the substance of the publication or broadcast captures the gist or sting of the statements made in the official proceedings”].) ‘“In assessing this question, ‘the [publications] [are] to be measured by the natural and probable effect [they] would have on the mind of the average reader. [Citations.] The standard of interpretation to be used in testing alleged defamatory language is how those in the community where the [matters] [were] published would reasonably understand [them].’ ” (Kilgore v. Younger, supra, 30 Cal.3d at p. 777; see Carver v. Bonds (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 328, 344-345 [37 Cal.Rptr.3d 480] [a statement is not considered false unless it would have a different effect on the mind of the reader from that which the truth would have produced].)
In evaluating the effect a publication has on the average reader, the challenged language must be viewed in context to determine whether, applying a ‘“totality of the circumstances” test, it is reasonably susceptible to the defamatory meaning alleged by the plaintiff: “ ‘[A] defamatory meaning must be found, if at all, in a reading of the publication as a whole.’ [Citation.] ‘This is a rule of reason. Defamation actions cannot be based on snippets taken out of context.’ ” (Balzaga, supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at p. 1338; accord, Hawran v. Hixson, supra, 209 Cal.App.4th at p. 290 [‘“[l]ooking to the totality of the circumstances as we must, we examine the allegedly defamatory statements of the September press release, as well as the context in which the press release was issued, to determine whether Hawran satisfied his burden of providing a prima facie showing the press release contains actionable, provably false assertions of fact”].)
Finally, because a defamatory statement (or trade libel) must contain a provable falsehood, mere opinions are not actionable unless the published statement declares or implies a provably false assertion of fact. (GetFugu, Inc. v. Patton Boggs LLP, supra, 220 Cal.App.4th at p. 156; Hawran v. Hixson, supra, 209 Cal.App.4th at p. 289.) Even if an opinion can be understood as implying facts capable of being proved true or false, however, it is not actionable if it also discloses the underlying factual bases for the opinion and those statements are true. (Ruiz v. Harbor View Community Assn. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1456, 1471 [37 Cal.Rptr.3d 133] [“[a]n opinion is not actionable if it discloses all the statements of fact on which the opinion is based and [101]*101those statements are true”]; Nygard, Inc. v. Uusi-Kerttula (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1053 [72 Cal.Rptr.3d 210] [same].)
c. J-M failed to establish a likelihood it would prevail on the merits of its defamation and trade libel claims
Because J-M conceded the challenged causes of action arose from protected activity, the burden shifted to it to establish it was likely to prevail on its claims for defamation and trade libel. (See Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman, supra, 51 Cal.4th 811, 819-820.) Liberally construing the fair report privilege, as have prior appellate decisions (see, e.g., Sipple v. Foundation for Nat. Progress, supra, 71 Cal.App.4th at p. 240 [“[t]he courts have construed Civil Code section 47, subdivision (d), broadly”]), and mindful of the Legislature’s intent in amending subdivision (d) in 1996 ‘“to preserve the scarce resources of California’s courts [and] to avoid using courts for satellite litigation,” we conclude J-M failed to establish a probability of prevailing on its defamation and trade libel claims. (Stats. 1996, ch. 1055, § 1, p. 6641.)
In our view, the average reader of the entire three-plus-page press release would reasonably understand the release described the substantial evidence presented at trial detailing J-M’s decade-long policy of emphasizing production quotas over quality control, essentially unchallenged by J-M, as well as the specific findings of the jury that J-M knowingly misrepresented its PVC pipe had been manufactured and tested in a manner that assured it had the strength and durability required by applicable industry standards. J-M’s attempt to read the press release as inaccurately implying the jury had found specific items of pipe it had provided for underground water systems were defective and had actually failed is predicated on a strained construction of the language used, relies on “snippets taken out of context” and effectively imports into the press release’s description of the trial and jury verdict quotations conveying posttrial comments of several government officials.
The press release covers four related, but distinct topics—the trial, the verdict, the legal consequences of the verdict (J-M’s potential liability for damages) and the postverdict reaction of several government officials. In arguing the press release is not protected by Civil Code section 47, subdivision (d)’s fair report privilege because it includes criticism of J-M’s pipe that goes beyond the jury’s specific findings, J-M fails to distinguish among those discrete aspects or to acknowledge the release is as much about the evidence presented at trial concerning J-M’s dishonesty in dealing with its government customers and its exposure to a large future award of damages as it is about the actual verdict in this initial phase of the litigation.
[102]*102The principal focus of J-M’s claims for defamation and trade libel is the headline “JM Eagle faces billions in damages after jury finds JM liable for making and selling faulty water system pipes.” While the adjective “faulty” considered in isolation could suggest the pipes sold contained manufacturing flaws that made them unserviceable, that inference is not reasonably supportable when the headline is read and considered with the press release as a whole. (See Balzaga, supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at p. 1338 [“when the alleged defamatory statement is contained in a headline, the headline must be read in conjunction with the entire article, and when so read the conclusion and inferences alleged by the plaintiff must be supported”]; see also Morningstar, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 676, 692 [29 Cal.Rptr.2d 547] [headline must be read and considered along with the article as a whole]; Selleck v. Globe International, Inc. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1123, 1132-1133 [212 Cal.Rptr. 838] [court must examine newspaper’s headlines, caption and article as a whole to determine whether it is “reasonably susceptible of a defamatory meaning”].)
The press release reported “[t]he first trial determined whether from 1996 to 2006 JM Eagle lied about whether its pipe met strength and durability standards required by government specifications, thereby making it liable for damages under state and local false claims laws.” That statement succinctly and accurately summarized the jury’s findings.5 The press release also explained “the trial focused on those five government entities that were selected from the larger group as ‘exemplar’ plaintiffs as a way to streamline the trial.” It continued, “A separate trial will be held to determine the amount of damages. The date for that trial hasn’t been set yet. Although the trial involved just five plaintiffs, all the states, cities and water districts named in the case could share in the damages that are recovered.” Again, those statements are both complete and correct. Viewed in the context of these statements, none of which was identified by J-M as defamatory in its first amended complaint or advanced in its opposition to the special motion to strike as a basis for its claims, the headline is a reasonable characterization of the jury’s findings. To describe the noncompliant and misrepresented pipe sold by J-M as “faulty” or “substandard” falls well within the acceptable margin of flexibility/literary license. (See, e.g., Jennings v. Telegram-Tribune [103]*103Co., supra, 164 Cal.App.3d at pp. 122, 127 [fair report privilege applied as a matter of law to article describing failure to file income tax returns as “tax fraud”; “while perhaps overblown or exaggerated, the terms are easily within the literary license concept of the Reader’s Digest case”]; Handelsman v. San Francisco Chronicle, supra, 11 Cal.App.3d at pp. 387-388 [newspaper’s characterization of a complaint for civil conversion as an allegation of “ ‘outright theft’ ” was a fair and true report of the complaint].)6
J-M also challenges the use of the terms “shoddy manufacturing practices” and “shoddy pipe” in the second and third paragraphs of the press release, again arguing the jury made no such findings. But, contrary to J-M’s argument, neither use of the term “shoddy” purported to describe the jury’s findings, as opposed to evidence, outlined in the press release, regarding J-M’s production methods that pressured its managers to satisfy output requirements without regard to quality standards: “Many witnesses testified that JM Eagle plant managers were under intense pressure to meet production quotas that were impossible to fulfill without cutting corners. Those who failed to meet quotas had their pay docked, and some lost their jobs. If they met the quotas, they could double their monthly salaries. [¶] The quotas created strong incentives to ship bad pipe. The jury heard many witnesses testify that plant managers routinely removed ‘reject’ tags from pipe that quality control personnel had identified as failing to meet quality standards. That pipe was then shipped to unknowing customers.” Although J-M points out that the evidence at trial was contested, it does not contend these statements are inaccurate summaries of the extensive testimony presented by Phillips & Cohen in support of the plaintiffs’ case. Labeling these manufacturing practices and the resulting product “shoddy” is a fair characterization of the trial evidence. No reasonable reader would understand it to be part of the jury’s verdict, which was clearly described as limited to false representations regarding uniform compliance with industry strength and durability standards.
As for the observation J-M had a potential exposure of “billions in damages,” the press release clearly stated a further trial to determine the [104]*104amount of damages would be scheduled in the future. Neither the headline nor the press release itself suggested the jury verdict in the hrst trial had fixed the amount (or range) of damages that could be recovered. Moreover, the press release disclosed the basis for Attorney Eric Havian’s opinion that damages could potentially be in the billions of dollars: The various governmental enhties involved in the lawsuit had spent $2.2 billion to buy J-M pipe during the 10-year period at issue, and a damage award would properly compensate the plaintiff entities for a portion of the original acquisition price of the misrepresented pipe, plus the cost to replace pipe sooner than expected. (Even this last point did not imply that the pipe needed to be replaced immediately, as J-M contends, only sooner than the 50-100 years anticipated by the industry’s durability standard to which J-M had falsely certified.) The press release illustrated those damage concepts by nohng that one of the plaintiffs “has already spent millions of dollars to replace fairly new JM Eagle water pipes that failed, despite being considered ‘hundred-year pipe’ ” and a second had “also experienced a catastrophic failure of JM Eagle pipe that required extensive repairs.” J-M does not queshon the accuracy of either of those statements. Although J-M correctly observes the finding of liability did not technically mean any plaintiff was “entitled” to damages in the further proceedings, the statement that J-M was now at risk that the government entities involved in the lawsuit would recover very large, but as-yet-undetermined damage awards was a thoroughly fair summary of the status of the litigation. Havian’s estimate that damages could potentially total billions of dollars was nonactionable opinion based on unchallenged information disclosed in the press release itself. (See Summit Bank v. Rogers (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 669, 696 [142 Cal.Rptr.3d 40] [whether a statement is actionable fact or nonactionable opinion is ordinarily a question of law for the court]; Franklin v. Dynamic Details, Inc. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 375, 387 [10 Cal.Rptr.3d 429] [“ ‘[a] statement of opinion based on fully disclosed facts can be punished only if the stated facts are themselves false and demeaning’ ”].)
Similarly, Havian’s observation, plainly identified as such, that the verdict reflected the jury’s decision “that JM Eagle management cared only about the amount of pipe JM produced, not the quality of that pipe” represents fair comment on the evidence of J-M’s manufacturing practices and Havian’s opinion regarding the basis for the jury’s rejection of J-M’s contention it had manufactured and tested its pipe in accordance with applicable quality, strength and durability requirements.
To be sure, the press release includes, in a separate section denominated “comments from government officials,” statements from the Nevada and Virginia Attorneys General reporting that the PVC pipe their states had purchased from J-M had already failed. Although Phillips & Cohen would be responsible for republishing those remarks in its press release if they were [105]*105actionable, J-M does not claim they are untrue; and, while part of the context for the discussion of the trial and jury verdict in the press release, no reasonable reader could conclude those comments purported to describe the jury’s verdict in the case.
In sum, Phillips & Cohen may be guilty of self-promotion and puffery; but its description of the evidence at trial and the jury’s special verdict in the November 15, 2013 press release falls comfortably within the permissible degree of flexibility and literary license afforded communications to the media concerning judicial proceedings. The substance of its report was accurate. The release was absolutely privileged under Civil Code section 47, subdivision (d).
DISPOSITION
The order denying the special motion to strike under section 425.16 is reversed. The cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to enter a new order granting the motion and dismissing the complaint and to conduct further proceedings to determine the amount of attorney fees and costs to be awarded Phillips & Cohen as the prevailing party on the motion. Phillips & Cohen is also to recover its attorney fees and costs on appeal in an amount to be determined by the trial court.
Zelon, J., concurred.