Franchisees Filed Anti-SLAPP Motion in Utah Lawsuit
Business owners are using state protections to challenge legal claims and protect free speech.
Updated on Sept. 29, 2026 in Openings & Closings
Live Poll
Should companies be allowed to use lawsuits to prevent individuals from publishing critical speech?
Ben Schneider and Victor Nguyen have filed an anti-SLAPP motion against BAM Franchising, seeking to dismiss the majority of claims in a lawsuit containing 13 causes of action. The motion cites Utah’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA) as the basis for the legal defense.
Why it matters
The filing highlights the tactical use of anti-SLAPP statutes to curb litigation perceived as suppressing speech rather than addressing specific defamatory statements. It serves as a test of the legal risk businesses face when pursuing complex lawsuits against individuals.
The legal action involves 13 distinct causes of action, challenging the scope of the suit under the UPEPA standard adopted by 17 states. The ultimate financial liability remains unknown, though the motion could force BAM Franchising to cover attorney fees if successful.
The players
BAM Franchising
A commercial entity that manages franchise operations and maintains legal interests through litigation.
Ben Schneider
A defendant in the current litigation who is utilizing state anti-SLAPP protections to contest claims.
Victor Nguyen
A co-defendant in the legal action who joined the motion to dismiss the lawsuit claims.
The details
Attorneys from Spencer Fane filed the motion, arguing that the underlying lawsuit lacks specific evidence of defamation and acts to weaponize the judicial system against protected speech. This defensive maneuver follows a pattern of legal shifts in the state, where previous parties such as the Mansells saw claims against them dropped after the plaintiff issued an apology. The court must now weigh these arguments against prior rulings, such as the precedent set in UHS of Provo Canyon v. Bliss.
Timeline
Mid-2023: Utah adopted the UPEPA anti-SLAPP law.
September 24, 2024: Court ruling in UHS of Provo Canyon v. Bliss.
Market Landscape
The filing represents a growing trend of defendants leveraging Utah's Uniform Public Expression Protection Act to test the strength of corporate litigation. This motion places the current suit in the context of recent state jurisprudence, following precedents like UHS of Provo Canyon v. Bliss.
Business owners should recognize that state-level anti-SLAPP laws significantly alter the cost and risk profile of pursuing defamation or speech-related litigation. Management should consult with counsel to evaluate whether their current legal strategy aligns with these evolving statutory protections.
The takeaway
The motion illustrates how anti-SLAPP protections are increasingly utilized to force a higher evidentiary standard in commercial disputes. Operators should track the court's ruling, as it will clarify the future viability of using these statutes to dismiss multi-count business lawsuits.
Further reading
For more on the business landscape in the state, visit our Openings & Closings section.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Techdirt.
Live Poll
Should companies be allowed to use lawsuits to prevent individuals from publishing critical speech?
