The trial court correctly denied defendant’s Anti-SLAPP motion.  The absolute litigation privilege did not protect her from liability for her web blog and Yelp! postings that allegedly defamed the plaintiff construction contractor that she said had botched repairs on her house.  Though defendant had filed a complaint with the Contractor’s Licensing Board which had awarded her compensation from the plaintiff, many of the allegedly defamatory web postings were made after the administrative proceeding had ended and were made without regard to that proceeding.  Following Rothman v. Jackson (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1134 which held that the litigation privilege does not extend to litigating in the press, this decision holds that the privilege likewise does not immunize litigation on the web.  Instead, to be privileged, a communication must function as a useful step in the litigation process and must serve its purposes.