Defendant is a student loan debt collector which sued plaintiff on a student loan debt.  Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging that defendant manufactured false substitute rosters to show which entities owned the student loans it sued to collect.  The complaints alleged protected activity in the course of petitioning courts.  The case did not fit within the Flatley v. Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299 exception to the Anti-SLAPP statute since there was no uncontradicted evidence of illegal activity by defendant which contested plaintiff’s allegation that the substitute rosters were fraudulent.  Also, a CFPB consent decree requiring defendant to use better evidence of ownership in the future didn’t prove illegality was uncontested.  The consent decree stated that defendant did not admit liability.  The complaint thus arose from protected activity under CCP 415.16(e), but the case is remanded for the trial court to consider whether the litigation in exempt from the Anti-SLAPP statute under CCP 425.17(b) as a public interest lawsuit and whether plaintiff showed a probability of success on the merits.