|
|
| (33 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{ombox|type=notice|text='''Userspace legal-research note by [[User:Louis|Louis Rossmann]]. Not legal advice.''' This is personal legal research, not a neutral wiki article and not a substitute for a licensed Nevada attorney.}}
| | probe [https://law.justia.com/cases/nevada/supreme-court/2023/84679.html x] {{ombox|type=notice|text=t}} |
| | |
| ''This is research, not legal advice, and not a substitute for a licensed Nevada attorney. Louis Rossmann is not a lawyer and is not Will Prowse's counsel. The single most important step below is retaining Nevada anti-SLAPP counsel before the 60-day special-motion clock runs.''
| |
| | |
| On June 1, 2026, Dragonfly Energy Corp., the maker of Battle Born Batteries, sued DIY-solar reviewer William "Will" Prowse and his company Prowse Publications LLC in Nevada state court, on four claims arising from a series of YouTube videos about the batteries.<ref name="complaint">Complaint, ''Dragonfly Energy Corp. v. William Errol Prowse IV and Prowse Publications LLC'', No. CV26-01604 (Nev. 2d Jud. Dist. Ct., Washoe County, filed June 1, 2026). The plaintiff is the operating company Dragonfly Energy Corp.; its parent, Dragonfly Energy Holdings Corp., is the SEC filer (Nasdaq: DFLI).</ref><ref name="8k">{{Cite web |url=https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1847986/000149315226026754/form8-k.htm |title=Form 8-K, Item 8.01 (Dragonfly Energy Holdings Corp.) |publisher=U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission |date=2026-06-02 |access-date=2026-06-06}}</ref> Dragonfly asks the court not only for damages but for an order barring Prowse's future statements about the batteries and requiring him to take down the videos already published. The strongest answer is procedural and fast: Nevada has one of the country's most defendant-friendly anti-SLAPP statutes, a product-safety review of a mass-market consumer battery sits close to the center of what that statute protects, and the Nevada Supreme Court has confirmed that the statute reaches every claim built on the protected speech, not only the libel count.<ref name="panik">''Panik v. TMM, Inc.'', 139 Nev. Adv. Op. 53 (2023) (anti-SLAPP protections are not limited to particular claims; the court evaluates the statements underlying the claim, not the label the plaintiff gives it). [https://law.justia.com/cases/nevada/supreme-court/2023/84679.html Opinion via Justia].</ref> A special motion to dismiss freezes discovery, forces Dragonfly to put up real proof early, and, if it succeeds, makes Dragonfly pay Prowse's legal fees plus up to $10,000.
| |
| | |
| == What Dragonfly actually filed ==
| |
| | |
| The case is in the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, in Washoe County (Reno), where Dragonfly is headquartered, as case number CV26-01604.<ref name="complaint" /> Dragonfly is represented by Parsons Behle & Latimer, the same firm defending the company in a separate consumer class action over the same batteries (see below). The complaint pleads four claims:
| |
| | |
| * '''Trade libel / business disparagement''', the central claim.
| |
| * '''Unfair competition / deceptive trade practices''' under the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act, NRS 598.0915.
| |
| * '''Intentional interference with prospective economic advantage'''.
| |
| * '''Injunctive relief''', pleaded as a separate count, seeking both a ban on future statements and removal of the existing videos, posts, thumbnails, and comments.<ref name="complaint" />
| |
| | |
| The factual core is a set of eleven YouTube videos Prowse published between December 2025 and May 2026, which Dragonfly says collectively drew more than 1.78 million views, in which he tore down and cycle-tested Battle Born batteries and concluded their terminal design is unsafe.<ref name="complaint" /> Dragonfly's framing of the dispute is worth quoting, because the defense is built around it. Its chief commercial officer, Wade Seaburg, said in the company's press release:
| |
| | |
| <blockquote>''"Dragonfly Energy respects and encourages good-faith product reviews, independent testing, and open technical discussion. This lawsuit is not about silencing criticism. It is about accountability when what we believe are false and misleading safety claims are presented as technical fact and amplified through monetized content."''<ref name="pr">{{Cite web |url=https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2026/06/02/3305031/0/en/Will-Prowse-Sued-by-Dragonfly-Energy-Over-Alleged-False-and-Misleading-Claims-About-Battle-Born-Batteries.html |title=Will Prowse Sued by Dragonfly Energy Over Alleged False and Misleading Claims About Battle Born Batteries |publisher=Dragonfly Energy Holdings Corp. (GlobeNewswire) |date=2026-06-02 |access-date=2026-06-06}}</ref></blockquote>
| |
| | |
| A plaintiff that concedes on the record that it ''"respects and encourages good-faith product reviews, independent testing, and open technical discussion"'' has admitted the public-interest character of exactly the activity it is suing over.
| |
| | |
| The most important admission, though, is in the complaint's own description of how the batteries work. Dragonfly pleads that the Battle Born 100Ah 12-volt battery contains a ''"thermal protection fail-safe"'': a brass terminal post, an aluminum bolt, and a layer of PA-765 ABS polymer between the brass terminal and the copper bus bar.<ref name="complaint" /> When the positive terminal overheats, the complaint says, ''"the polymer softens, the post loosens,"'' current is interrupted, and a thermal-runaway event is averted, so that ''"the loose positive terminal is not the cause of overheating; it is the consequence."''<ref name="complaint" /> In other words, Dragonfly's own pleading concedes that, by design, the terminal melts the polymer and the post comes loose under thermal stress. That concession is the spine of the truth defense: the physical behavior Prowse filmed is the behavior Dragonfly says the battery is built to perform.
| |
| | |
| == The documented safety record behind the dispute ==
| |
| | |
| For both the trade-libel and the deceptive-practices claims, Dragonfly carries the burden of proving that Prowse's safety statements are materially false, because the speech is on a matter of public concern and Prowse is the publisher of his own reporting.<ref name="hepps">''Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps'', 475 U.S. 767, 776-77 (1986) (a private-figure plaintiff suing a media defendant over speech on a matter of public concern bears the burden of proving falsity). [https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/475/767 Opinion via Cornell LII].</ref> The public record makes that burden hard to carry, because the central factual claim, that these terminals can overheat and fail, is corroborated from several independent directions and is partly conceded by Dragonfly itself.
| |
| | |
| '''Dragonfly concedes the mechanism.''' As above, the complaint pleads that the terminal is designed so the polymer melts and the post loosens after a thermal event.<ref name="complaint" /> The certifications Dragonfly cites point the same way: the complaint states that the 100Ah battery ''"repeatedly and consistently passed the standard's most severe short-circuit test ... due to the presence of a thermal protection fail-safe."''<ref name="complaint" /> The melt-and-disconnect behavior is, on Dragonfly's own account, how the battery passes its safety test. Whether that behavior should be called a fail-safe or a flaw is a question of engineering judgment, not a question of whether the melting happens.
| |
| | |
| '''Independent testing corroborates the failures.''' The technology outlet ''Hackaday'' reported on Prowse's controlled tests as they were published. A brand-new 100Ah unit's negative-terminal enclosure melted under an 80-amp discharge.<ref name="hackaday-melt">{{Cite web |url=https://hackaday.com/2026/01/16/battle-born-lfp-battery-melts-with-new-problem/ |title=Battle Born LFP Battery Melts With New Problem |publisher=Hackaday |date=2026-01-16 |access-date=2026-06-06}}</ref> A unit cycled at 49 amps, well under its 100-amp rating, drove the battery-management system into repeated disconnects while the spacer melted, and the management system ''"never puts the battery into any kind of safe mode."''<ref name="hackaday-death">{{Cite web |url=https://hackaday.com/2026/03/19/studying-a-battle-born-lfp-batterys-death-under-controlled-conditions/ |title=Studying a Battle Born LFP Battery's Death Under Controlled Conditions |publisher=Hackaday |date=2026-03-19 |access-date=2026-06-06}}</ref> A 300-amp industrial unit ''"failed violently with a cell venting and the loose BMS rattling around in the case."''<ref name="hackaday-autopsy">{{Cite web |url=https://hackaday.com/2026/02/16/performing-an-autopsy-on-15-dead-battle-born-lfp-batteries/ |title=Performing an Autopsy on 15 Dead Battle Born LFP Batteries |publisher=Hackaday |date=2026-02-16 |access-date=2026-06-06}}</ref> An earlier RV-industry report documented a field unit whose positive-terminal connection had worked loose and was measured at more than 200 degrees Fahrenheit with arcing inside the case.<ref name="rvtravel">{{Cite web |url=https://www.rvtravel.com/troubles-battle-born-batteries-youtuber-questions-safety-1240b/ |title=Troubles with Battle Born batteries? YouTuber questions safety |publisher=RV Travel |date=2025-12-18 |access-date=2026-06-06}}</ref>
| |
