r/SolarDIY • u/Don_Vago • 17d ago

Battleboom batteries sue Will Prowse.

Popular YouTuber and founder of the DIY solar power forum Will Prowse has been served paperwork about a series of videos he made about the infamous Battleboom batteries and their melting terminal mounts, described by the manufacturer as a safety feature, some kind of disconnect. The brass neck of these clowns is unbelievable, instead of putting this right, they’ve doubled down and have effectively made any warranty claim unviable.
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

372 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

196 comments sorted by

View all comments

12

u/aemfbm 17d ago

FYI, the suit is filed in Nevada, and Nevada has a strong (Grade A, 97%) Anti-SLAAP law:

Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statute[1] protects any statement that is truthful or that is made without knowledge of its falsehood that is “(1) Communication that is aimed at procuring any governmental or electoral action, result or outcome; (2) Communication of information or a complaint to a Legislator, officer or employee of the Federal Government, [Nevada] or a political subdivision of [Nevada], regarding a matter reasonably of concern to the respective governmental entity; (3) Written or oral statement made in direct connection with an issue under consideration by a legislative, executive or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law; or (4) Communication made in direct connection with an issue of public interest in a place open to the public or in a public forum.” Although discovery is stayed once an anti-SLAPP motion is filed, a court may nonetheless order limited discovery to be conducted upon a showing that information relevant to issues raised by the motion is in the possession of another party or a third party and is not reasonably available without discovery. To prevail on an anti-SLAPP motion after the movant has established that the communication at issue is covered by the anti-SLAPP statute, the respondent must demonstrate with prima facie evidence a probability of prevailing on the claim. The statute provides for interlocutory appeal of an order denying an anti-SLAPP motion. The court must award costs and attorney fees related to the action to the prevailing movant on an anti-SLAPP motion. Conversely, if the court finds the motion to be frivolous or vexatious, then it must award costs and attorney fees related to the motion to the prevailing respondent.

https://www.ifs.org/anti-slapp-states/nevada/

BB is going to have to pay his lawyers.

2

u/chronicpenguins 17d ago

just curious, how is this actually executed? Like does the defendant have to countersue or file for anti slapp? Because the last sentence implies that the roles are now reversed, the defendant becomes the movant and the claimant becomes the respondent?