The trial court erred in denying defendant’s Anti-SLAPP motion.  Plaintiff’s complaint was based on allegedly false statements made in reports posted by plaintiff on the Internet, accusing a Chinese company of defrauding investors by claiming inflated sales based on purchases by intermediaries like plaintiff who then resold the product.  Public postings on the Internet are a public forum for purposes of CCP 425.16(e).  Postings about publicly traded corporations’ alleged dealings and fraudulent schemes are matters of public interest.  So defendant’s Internet postings were protected speech.  The commercial speech exception under CCP 425.17(c) didn’t apply because the postings did not promote any product or service that defendant or any of its competitors provided.  Plaintiff was not a competitor as it sold metal, while plaintiff was engaged in short-selling stock.  Plaintiff didn’t prove a probability of success on any of its claims.  It lacked UCL standing because it didn’t show that defedant’s posting caused it economic loss.  The government blocked plaintiff’s exports for other reasons.  It failed to support its trade libel claim with any evidence that a specific existing or potential customer decided not to deal with plaintiff based on the allegedly false statements in defendant’s Internet postings.  Plaintiff’s intentional interference with prospective economic advantage failed for similar reasons.