Consumer Rights Wiki

User:Louis/sandbox dfli publish test

< User:Louis
Revision as of 18:58, 6 June 2026 by Louis (talk | contribs) (test chunked v2)

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.[1][2] 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.[3] 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.[1] 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.[1]

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.[1] 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:

"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."[4]

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.[1] 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."[1] 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.[5] 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.[1] 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."[1] 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.[6] 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."[7] A 300-amp industrial unit "failed violently with a cell venting and the loose BMS rattling around in the case."[8] 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.[9]

Consumers have sued over the same defect. On February 13, 2026, a putative consumer class action, Berdner v. Dragonfly Energy Holdings Corp., was filed in Sonoma County, California, and later removed to federal court.[10] In Dragonfly's own words, in its annual report, the plaintiffs "allege that the products share a uniform design defect related to the positive terminal connection that can result in overheating, premature failure, and safety risk."[11][12] That is a separate set of plaintiffs, represented by separate counsel, describing the same positive-terminal failure on the same battery line that Prowse described.

Dragonfly's own SEC filings disclose the risk. In its annual report, Dragonfly warns investors that "[l]ithium-ion battery cells have been observed to catch fire or release smoke and flame," and that a product defect "could subject us to lawsuits, product recalls, or redesign efforts."[13] The company's estimated warranty obligation rose from $307,000 at the end of 2023 to $514,000 at the end of 2024 to $867,000 at the end of 2025.[11][13]

No federal regulator has issued a recall or safety action on these batteries, and the defense does not claim one. The point is narrower and it is enough: the core message that these packs can overheat and fail at the terminal is substantially true, corroborated by independent testing, by a separate consumer class action, and by Dragonfly's own disclosures, and conceded in part by the complaint itself. Substantial truth is a complete defense, and the closest precedent is a manufacturer that sued a product-review organization over a critical test and lost, because sharp criticism of a product is "commonplace in the forum of robust debate."[14] When the contested statement is a reviewer's evaluation of a product he tested, the Ninth Circuit has held a plaintiff simply cannot carry the falsity burden: "[a] reasonable jury could not find that Unelko met its burden of proving falsity by a preponderance of the evidence."[15]

Prowse's own history with these batteries

Dragonfly's theory of motive is that Prowse turned on the batteries only after the money stopped. The dated record, including Dragonfly's own pleading, is more complicated than that narrative.

Prowse first tore down a Battle Born battery in November 2019, and praised it. The complaint quotes him from that video: "This passes all of the tests. Okay. Finally, we have a good battery. I can actually recommend it."[1] The complaint also concedes that this 2019 video was unpaid and that Battle Born was unaware of it before he posted it.[1] Dragonfly pleads that an affiliate relationship ran from January 2019 to October 2025, that it paid Prowse a total of about $206,000 over those years, and that it deactivated his affiliate link in October 2025.[1]

The complaint's own chronology does not line up cleanly with "criticism only after the deal ended." Dragonfly pleads that "[i]n August of 2025, Prowse began posting negative comments about Battle Born ... [and] began asking his forum members to send him defective or failed Battle Born Batteries," and that it deactivated his affiliate link in October 2025 "[i]n response to the growing negativity."[1] On Dragonfly's own pleading, then, the criticism began while the affiliate relationship was still in place, and the company ended the relationship because of the criticism, not the other way around.

When Dragonfly suggested his early teardowns used abused or pre-damaged batteries, Prowse answered the point on camera by buying a new battery and cycling it within the manufacturer's stated ratings, and it failed; the independent Hackaday coverage of that controlled test reported the same result.[6][7] Throughout, he tore the batteries down on camera and published his underlying cycle-testing data for anyone to download, which is the factual record his conclusions rest on.

Nevada's anti-SLAPP statute is the primary shield

Nevada's anti-SLAPP law (NRS 41.635 through 41.670) exists to kill exactly this kind of suit early, and the Nevada Supreme Court has confirmed it reaches all four of Dragonfly's claims, not just the libel count, because the question is whether the claims are based on protected good-faith communication, not what the plaintiff labels them.[3]

The protected category. NRS 41.637 defines a "good faith communication in furtherance of ... the right to free speech in direct connection with an issue of public concern." Its fourth category covers a communication made in direct connection with an issue of public interest in a public forum, so long as it is truthful or made without knowledge of its falsehood.[16] A YouTube channel and the diysolarforum.com message board are public forums; fire and thermal-runaway risk in a product Dragonfly says it has deployed more than 400,000 times is an issue of public interest.[1]

The special motion and the clock. NRS 41.660 authorizes a special motion to dismiss, which must be filed within 60 days after service of the complaint, a deadline the court may extend only for good cause.[17] The 60-day window, measured from the date Prowse is personally served, is the most important date in the case.

Burden shifting and the discovery stay. On the motion, the defendant first shows by a preponderance that the claim is based on a protected good-faith communication; the burden then flips to the plaintiff to show, with prima facie evidence, a probability of prevailing.[17] Filing the motion stays discovery while it, and any appeal, is pending.[17] That defeats the usual playbook of a well-funded plaintiff: Dragonfly cannot bury Prowse in depositions and document demands to raise his costs while the motion is decided. The Nevada Supreme Court reviews these rulings de novo and has confirmed the two-prong structure.[18]

The downside for Dragonfly. If Prowse wins the motion, the court must award him reasonable costs and attorney's fees, may award up to $10,000 on top of that, and a denial is immediately appealable, which keeps the discovery stay in place during the appeal.[19][20]

A battery review is an issue of public interest. Nevada uses the guiding principles in Shapiro v. Welt to decide that question, asking among other things whether the subject concerns a substantial number of people rather than a purely personal grievance.[21] Dragonfly's own marketing answers it: the company states it has deployed more than 400,000 batteries across RV, marine, off-grid, and heavy-duty applications.[1] Online consumer reviews get the same treatment in the case law, because "consumer information that goes beyond a particular interaction between the parties and implicates matters of public concern that can affect many people is generally deemed to involve an issue of public interest."[22][23]

Meeting prong one. Prowse's initial showing can be made largely by his own sworn declaration laying out his methodology and stating that he believed his conclusions were true when he published, which Nevada case law treats as sufficient at prong one absent conflicting evidence.[24]

The trade libel claim has built-in weak points

By suing for trade libel rather than personal defamation, Dragonfly took on a heavier burden. Nevada business disparagement requires a false and disparaging statement, unprivileged publication, malice, and special damages.[25]

Special damages must be pleaded with specifics. This is the soft spot in the complaint. Special damages in a disparagement case are not presumed; they must be pleaded with specificity under Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 9(g).[26] Dragonfly's complaint pleads only an aggregate "drop-off" in sales, OEM customers it does not name, and a high "volume of calls," with no particular lost sale, no canceled order tied to a particular statement, and no dollar figure.[1] The closest precedent is the structural twin of this case: in Isuzu Motors Ltd. v. Consumers Union, a vehicle maker sued a consumer-review organization over a critical test, and the court dismissed every product-disparagement claim because the maker pleaded its losses in the aggregate, holding that the claim "requires pleading and proof of special damages in the form of pecuniary loss" and that the claims "fail to allege special damages with the specificity required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(g)."[27] Courts apply the rule routinely, dismissing trade-libel claims that plead lost sales without naming the customers and transactions lost, and as recently as September 2025 a court granted summary judgment against a disparagement plaintiff that could not prove specific lost transactions.[28][29][30]

Fact versus opinion. A conclusion drawn out loud from facts shown to the audience is opinion, not a false statement of fact.[31] The controlling Nevada authority on this exact pattern is PETA v. Bobby Berosini, Ltd., where the claimed defamation came packaged with the videotape that showed the audience the very conduct being criticized, and the statements were protected because the facts were on the tape for the viewer to judge:

everyone involved has seen the "movie"; and all the facts upon which opinions were based were "disclosed" in the videotape itself...

[32] That is Prowse's case almost on all fours. He shows his teardown, his test rig, and his data on camera, then says the pack is unsafe, and a viewer can look at the same footage and disagree, which is the test for protected opinion.[33] A technical conclusion drawn from data the speaker put in front of the audience is not the kind of "fact" that can be proven false in a defamation case, as the Second Circuit held for disclosed scientific data in ONY, Inc. v. Cornerstone Therapeutics and the Third Circuit held for a conclusion drawn from nonfraudulent published data in Pacira.[34][35] Dragonfly's complaint concedes the point in passing when it pleads that "Prowse's own published data from the video shows that the battery delivers full-rated capacity under proper conditions," an acknowledgment that the data was published for the audience to weigh.[1]

Truth, and who has to prove it. Truth is a complete defense, and for public-concern speech the burden of proving falsity is the plaintiff's, not the speaker's.[5] Dragonfly does not get to demand that Prowse prove his tests were perfect; it has to prove the core message, that these packs can overheat and fail dangerously, is materially false, against the record described above.

Actual malice is a state of mind about truth, not a motive. Dragonfly's whole narrative rests on financial motive, but the Supreme Court has drawn the line three times. A profit motive does not prove actual malice, or the body of First Amendment libel law "would be little more than empty vessels."[36] Spite and ill will are not actual malice.[37] And lower courts have rejected the precise profit-and-grudge mix Dragonfly pleads: "[e]vidence of a defendant's ill will, desire to injure, or political or profit motive does not suffice."[38] Nevada applies the same definition, requiring that the speaker entertained serious doubts about the truth.[39]

The deceptive-trade-practices claim is the libel claim relabeled

The second count, under the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act, fails for three independent reasons.

  1. ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 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).
  2. ↑ "Form 8-K, Item 8.01 (Dragonfly Energy Holdings Corp.)". U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. 2026-06-02. Retrieved 2026-06-06.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 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). Opinion via Justia.
  4. ↑ "Will Prowse Sued by Dragonfly Energy Over Alleged False and Misleading Claims About Battle Born Batteries". Dragonfly Energy Holdings Corp. (GlobeNewswire). 2026-06-02. Retrieved 2026-06-06.
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 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). Opinion via Cornell LII.
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 "Battle Born LFP Battery Melts With New Problem". Hackaday. 2026-01-16. Retrieved 2026-06-06.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 "Studying a Battle Born LFP Battery's Death Under Controlled Conditions". Hackaday. 2026-03-19. Retrieved 2026-06-06.
  8. ↑ "Performing an Autopsy on 15 Dead Battle Born LFP Batteries". Hackaday. 2026-02-16. Retrieved 2026-06-06.
  9. ↑ "Troubles with Battle Born batteries? YouTuber questions safety". RV Travel. 2025-12-18. Retrieved 2026-06-06.
  10. ↑ Berdner v. Dragonfly Energy Holdings Corp., No. 3:26-cv-03855 (N.D. Cal.), removed April 30, 2026 from Sonoma County Superior Court No. 26CV01247. Docket via CourtListener.
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 "Form 10-K (fiscal year 2025), Legal Proceedings and Note on Warranty Obligations". Dragonfly Energy Holdings Corp. / U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. 2026-03-30. Retrieved 2026-06-06.
  12. ↑ "Form 10-Q (quarter ended March 31, 2026), Legal Proceedings". Dragonfly Energy Holdings Corp. / U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. 2026-05-14. Retrieved 2026-06-06.
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 "Form 10-K (fiscal year 2024), Item 1A Risk Factors". Dragonfly Energy Holdings Corp. / U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. 2025-03-31. Retrieved 2026-06-06.
  14. ↑ Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U.S. 485, 513 (1984). Opinion via Justia.
  15. ↑ Unelko Corp. v. Rooney, 912 F.2d 1049, 1053, 1057 (9th Cir. 1990). Opinion via Justia.
  16. ↑ Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.637. "NRS Chapter 41". Nevada Legislature. Retrieved 2026-06-06.
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.660. "NRS Chapter 41". Nevada Legislature. Retrieved 2026-06-06.
  18. ↑ Coker v. Sassone, 135 Nev. 8, 432 P.3d 746 (2019). Opinion via FindLaw.
  19. ↑ Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.670. "NRS Chapter 41". Nevada Legislature. Retrieved 2026-06-06.
  20. ↑ John v. Douglas County School District, 125 Nev. 746, 219 P.3d 1276 (2009).
  21. ↑ Shapiro v. Welt, 133 Nev. 35, 389 P.3d 262 (2017). Opinion via Justia.
  22. ↑ Wong v. Jing, 189 Cal. App. 4th 1354, 1366, 117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 747 (2010). Opinion via CourtListener.
  23. ↑ Chaker v. Mateo, 209 Cal. App. 4th 1138, 1146, 147 Cal. Rptr. 3d 496 (2012). Opinion via Google Scholar.
  24. ↑ Stark v. Lackey, 136 Nev. 38, 458 P.3d 342 (2020). Opinion via Justia.
  25. ↑ Clark County School District v. Virtual Education Software, Inc., 125 Nev. 374, 385-87, 213 P.3d 496 (2009). Opinion via FindLaw.
  26. ↑ Pardee Homes of Nevada v. Wolfram, 135 Nev. 173, 444 P.3d 423 (2019) (cited for the general rule that special damages must satisfy NRCP 9(g)). Opinion via Justia.
  27. ↑ Isuzu Motors Ltd. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 12 F. Supp. 2d 1035, 1047, 1050 (C.D. Cal. 1998). Opinion via Justia.
  28. ↑ MMS Trading Co. Pty Ltd. v. Hutton Toys, LLC, No. 1:20-cv-01360-SJB, 2021 WL 1193947 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2021).
  29. ↑ Sorihin v. Sea Queen II, No. 3:16-cv-05422-JST, 2017 WL 1102865 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2017).
  30. ↑ Double Diamond Distribution, Ltd. v. Crocs, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-01790-PAB-KAS, Slip Op. at 14-16 (D. Colo. Sept. 24, 2025).
  31. ↑ Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 18-19, 20 (1990). Opinion via Cornell LII.
  32. ↑ PETA v. Bobby Berosini, Ltd., 111 Nev. 615, 625, 895 P.2d 1269 (1995). Opinion via CourtListener.
  33. ↑ Partington v. Bugliosi, 56 F.3d 1147, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1995). Opinion via CourtListener.
  34. ↑ ONY, Inc. v. Cornerstone Therapeutics, Inc., 720 F.3d 490, 492, 498 (2d Cir. 2013). Opinion via Justia.
  35. ↑ Pacira Biosciences, Inc. v. American Society of Anesthesiologists, Inc., 583 F. Supp. 3d 654, 658 (D.N.J. 2022), aff'd, 63 F.4th 240 (3d Cir. 2023). Opinion via CourtListener.
  36. ↑ Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657, 667 (1989). Opinion via Cornell LII.
  37. ↑ Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496, 510-11 (1991). Opinion via Cornell LII.
  38. ↑ Campbell v. Citizens for an Honest Gov't, Inc., 255 F.3d 560, 569 (8th Cir. 2001). Opinion via Justia.
  39. ↑ Pegasus v. Reno Newspapers, Inc., 118 Nev. 706, 718-19, 57 P.3d 82 (2002). Opinion via Justia.
Retrieved from "https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/sandbox_dfli_publish_test&oldid=56392"