User:Louis/sandbox dfli publish test: Difference between revisions
t Tag: Reverted |
test chunked Tag: Manual revert |
||
| 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.}} | ||
''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: | |||