User:Louis/sandbox dfli publish test: Difference between revisions
test chunked v2 |
test chunked v2 |
||
| Line 88: | Line 88: | ||
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> | 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> | ||
The fourth element is where the claim breaks. Constitutionally protected speech cannot be the wrongful means that supplies the "absence of privilege or justification," because the First Amendment bars tort liability for the economic consequences of protected speech. The Supreme Court reversed a state-court interference judgment built on protected boycott advocacy, holding that ''"[s]peech does not lose its protected character ... simply because it may embarrass others or coerce them into action."''<ref name="claiborne">''NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co.'', 458 U.S. 886, 910 (1982). [https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/458/886 Opinion via Cornell LII].</ref> An interference claim built on the same publication as a failed defamation claim falls with it, because its gravamen is still the alleged injurious falsehood of a statement.<ref name="blatty" /><ref name="unelko" /> If Dragonfly cannot prove Prowse's statements were false and made with the required fault, it cannot convert the same speech into a damages award by calling it interference. | |||
== The affiliate money is a distraction, not a claim == | |||
Dragonfly leans on the roughly $206,000 in past affiliate commissions and banner advertising, the earlier praise, and a statement it attributes to Prowse in an April 2026 video that the only thing he received from the company was ''"four free batteries."''<ref name="complaint" /> None of that is a defense-killer. | |||
First, motive is not falsity. Whether Prowse profited from ad revenue or once took affiliate fees has nothing to do with whether a pack actually overheats; at most it bears on malice, which only matters if Dragonfly first proves the statements false. | |||
Second, the alleged denial is collateral. Trade libel must rest on a false statement about the plaintiff's product, not about the speaker's own affairs. Nevada defines the tort as injurious falsehoods ''"aimed at the business's goods or services,"'' and the Ninth Circuit states the same boundary the Nevada Supreme Court adopted, that trade libel is ''"not directed at the plaintiff's personal reputation but rather at the goods a plaintiff sells."''<ref name="ccsd" /><ref name="aetna">''Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. v. Centennial Insurance Co.'', 838 F.2d 346, 351 (9th Cir. 1988). [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/838/346/ Opinion via Justia].</ref> A statement by Prowse about whether he had an affiliate relationship is a statement about Prowse, not about the battery, and it fails the "of and concerning the product" requirement that limits this tort.<ref name="blatty" /> A defendant may also invoke anti-SLAPP protection even while disputing that he made the specific statement attributed to him.<ref name="spirtos">''Spirtos v. Yemenidjian'', 137 Nev. 711, 499 P.3d 611 (2021). [https://law.justia.com/cases/nevada/supreme-court/2021/80138.html Opinion via Justia].</ref> | |||
== The injunction and takedown request is an unconstitutional prior restraint == | |||