The district court correctly denied defendant’s Anti-SLAPP statute motion to dismiss. The case fell within the public benefit suit exception under CCP 425.17(b). Plaintiff sued on behalf of a class alleging that defendant’s use of her name and contact information which defendant made accessible for free by prospective customers to promote the D&B Hoovers database (along with all the rest of the database’s contents) violated her right to publicity under California law. Plaintiff did not seek relief different from that she sought for other class members. Plaintiff didn’t have to show that any or all class members would actually recover all the relief, including emotional distress damages, that she alleged on her and their behalf. The right to publicity was an important right under California law. California considers the right to control one’s name and likeness to be an important right affecting the public interest. Private enforcement was necessary as no public prosecutor had sued on this claim. The cost of prosecuting the case would exceed plaintiff’s likely individual recovery. Defendant was not excepted from the 425.17(b) exemption. Its database was not a newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication excepted under CCP 425.17(d)(1).