User:Louis/sandbox dfli publish test: Difference between revisions

← Older edit Newer edit →

VisualWikitext

@@ Line 78: / Line 78: @@
 The second count, under the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act, fails for three independent reasons.
+First, the statute does not reach a reviewer. NRS 598.0915 defines a "deceptive trade practice" only when committed ''"in the course of his or her business or occupation,"'' and the disparagement subsection targets a person who ''"[d]isparages the goods, services or business of another person by false or misleading representation of fact"'' in that course of business, meaning a competing seller, not a third-party critic.<ref name="nrs598">Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0915. {{Cite web |url=https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/nrs-598.html |title=NRS Chapter 598 (Deceptive Trade Practices) |publisher=Nevada Legislature |access-date=2026-06-06}}</ref> Prowse is not in the business of selling batteries. A reviewer who evaluates a product he does not sell is not engaged in commercial advertising or promotion at all.<ref name="tobinick">''Tobinick v. Novella'', 848 F.3d 935, 950 (11th Cir. 2017) (a critic's commentary is not "commercial advertising or promotion" where the defendant is not a competitor proposing a transaction). [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca11/15-14889/15-14889-2017-02-15.html Opinion via Justia].</ref>
+Second, a plaintiff cannot escape the First Amendment by relabeling a libel claim. The constitutional limits that protect speech ''"apply to all claims whose gravamen is the alleged injurious falsehood of a statement,"'' and a plaintiff ''"may not use related causes of action to avoid the constitutional requisites of a defamation claim."''<ref name="blatty">''Blatty v. New York Times Co.'', 42 Cal. 3d 1033, 1042-45, 728 P.2d 1177 (1986). [https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/42/1033.html Opinion via Justia].</ref><ref name="farah">''Farah v. Esquire Magazine'', 736 F.3d 528, 540 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (quoting ''Moldea v. New York Times Co.''). [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/12-7055/12-7055-2013-11-26.html Opinion via Justia].</ref> The Ninth Circuit applied that rule to a product-review case, holding that the disparagement and tortious-interference counts ''"are subject to the same first amendment requirements that govern actions for defamation,"'' and the Tenth Circuit reached the same result for business-tort claims built on protected opinion.<ref name="unelko" /><ref name="jeffco">''Jefferson County School District No. R-1 v. Moody's Investor's Services, Inc.'', 175 F.3d 848, 857, 860-61 (10th Cir. 1999). [https://www.courtlistener.com/c/F.3d/175/848/ Opinion via CourtListener].</ref> The deceptive-practices count is the trade-libel count by another name, and it inherits the same falsity burden, the same opinion protection, and the same fate.
+Third, the anti-SLAPP statute reaches it anyway, because the Nevada Supreme Court looks at the protected statements underlying a claim rather than the claim's label.<ref name="panik" />
+== The interference claim rises and falls with the libel claim ==
+The third count, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, requires Dragonfly to prove a prospective relationship, the defendant's knowledge of it, intent to harm by preventing it, the absence of privilege or justification, and resulting harm.<ref name="amerco">''In re Amerco Derivative Litigation'', 127 Nev. 196, 226-27, 252 P.3d 681 (2011). [https://www.courtlistener.com/c/Nev./127/196/ Opinion via CourtListener].</ref><ref name="consolgen">''Consolidated Generator-Nevada, Inc. v. Cummins Engine Co.'', 114 Nev. 1304, 1311-12, 971 P.2d 1251 (1998). [https://www.courtlistener.com/c/P.2d/971/1251/ Opinion via CourtListener].</ref><ref name="wichinsky">''Wichinsky v. Mosa'', 109 Nev. 84, 87-88, 847 P.2d 727 (1993). [https://www.courtlistener.com/c/Nev./109/84/ Opinion via CourtListener].</ref>