The Wave Plastic Surgery lawsuit against TikTok influencer Tina Kim was dismissed in April 2024 under California’s anti-SLAPP law, with a Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruling that Kim’s negative video review of the Koreatown clinic was protected opinion. Wave and its founder, Dr. Peter Lee, have appealed the dismissal to California’s Second Appellate District, where the case remained pending as of early 2026.
The TikTok Video Behind the Suit
On November 7, 2023, Kim posted a three-minute, sixteen-second video titled “My review of walking into Wave Plastic Surgery Center in Koreatown L.A.” to her TikTok account, which had more than 86,000 followers at the time. She called the clinic a “horrible horrible place” and told viewers, “Do not go to this WAVE Plastic Surgery in Koreatown Los Angeles.”1Audacy/KNX News. Influencer Wins Dismissal of Libel, Slander Suit Kim said staff were rude and ignored her for about 15 minutes in the lobby. The video passed 203,000 views.2Korea Daily. Koreatown Plastic Surgery’s Defamation Lawsuit Against TikTok Influencer Dismissed
Dr. Lee disputed her account. He said Kim did not have an appointment and that staff were busy when she arrived, and the clinic later said surveillance footage showed Kim was in the lobby for under four minutes.3FOX 11 Los Angeles. Koreatown Business Sues TikToker for Libel, Slander Over Video Review
What Wave and Dr. Lee Alleged
On December 7, 2023, Wave Plastic Surgery and Dr. Lee sued Kim in Los Angeles County Superior Court, seeking no less than $250,000 in damages.4Surgical Times. Sued by Surgical Clinic, Defamation Defendant Seeks Motion to Strike The complaint alleged libel, slander, and false light. It accused Kim of spreading “malicious intent and falsehoods” and blamed the video for a sharp decline in new customer applications at the practice’s Los Angeles, Costa Mesa, Arcadia, Rowland Heights, and San Francisco offices.1Audacy/KNX News. Influencer Wins Dismissal of Libel, Slander Suit
The suit also alleged Kim yelled at receptionists, used profanity, and made rude gestures toward staff, and it named three employees said to have experienced emotional distress from the encounter. Kim denied those claims.5GoFundMe. Tina’s Legal Fund to Fight a Bully
Why the Court Threw the Case Out
Kim’s attorney, Farzad Seyfnia, filed an anti-SLAPP motion on January 9, 2024, arguing that the review addressed a matter of public concern and was protected free speech.6Surgical Times. Superior Court Strikes SLAPP Suit Brought by Surgery Center California’s anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16, lets defendants quickly dispose of lawsuits that target speech on public issues, and if the defendant wins, the plaintiff pays the defendant’s attorney fees.
On April 17, 2024, Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis granted the motion and dismissed the entire complaint. She ruled Kim’s statements were “all non actionable opinion” and that Kim had shown the claims arose from “the furtherance of the right to petition or free speech.”6Surgical Times. Superior Court Strikes SLAPP Suit Brought by Surgery Center The judge also held that Wave, as a business entity, could not bring a false light or any invasion-of-privacy claim.2Korea Daily. Koreatown Plastic Surgery’s Defamation Lawsuit Against TikTok Influencer Dismissed
The Appeal and the Frozen Fee Award
The court awarded $61,000 in attorney fees to Kim’s legal team, as the anti-SLAPP statute requires. Wave and Dr. Lee then appealed to California’s Second Appellate District under case number B341006, which placed the fee award in escrow. Kim’s original attorney has not been paid.5GoFundMe. Tina’s Legal Fund to Fight a Bully
Wave and Dr. Lee filed their appellant brief in November 2025. As of January 2026, Kim’s appeals attorney was scheduled to file a response by February 10, 2026.5GoFundMe. Tina’s Legal Fund to Fight a Bully Kim has said she intends to pursue a malicious harassment lawsuit against Dr. Lee, the three receptionists, and their attorney once the appeal is resolved, and her defense counsel has indicated it plans to file a malicious prosecution action after appellate rights are exhausted.6Surgical Times. Superior Court Strikes SLAPP Suit Brought by Surgery Center
Kim has said the lawsuit forced her to move out of her apartment because she could not pay rent while funding her defense.5GoFundMe. Tina’s Legal Fund to Fight a Bully
What This Says About Negative Online Reviews
California’s anti-SLAPP analysis has two steps. The defendant must first show the speech involves a matter of public interest. If it does, the plaintiff must then show a probability of winning the defamation claim. Consumer reviews meant to help others make purchasing decisions are generally treated as matters of public interest, and calling a business “horrible” or telling viewers not to go there is the kind of subjective commentary courts routinely treat as opinion.
The line does move when a reviewer makes specific factual claims that turn out to be demonstrably false. Business law attorney Ugo Lord, commenting on the case for Fox 11, said that when someone “exaggerates the truth or stretches the truth maliciously” to mislead an audience, a court may find that conduct actionable.3FOX 11 Los Angeles. Koreatown Business Sues TikToker for Libel, Slander Over Video Review Judge Duffy-Lewis found that line was not crossed here. Whether the Second Appellate District sees it the same way is still open.