The trial court correctly denied defendant’s Anti-SLAPP motion to strike. The complaint’s declaratory relief claim was based on the parties’ dispute over whether a city ordinance allowed defendant to move trash bins to the curb or required that work to be done by plaintiff. That claim was not based on any protected conduct and so could not be stricken under CCP 425.16. Plaintiff’s tort claims were based on defendant’s letters written in the context of its serious and good faith contemplation of litigation. However, those letters were excepted from CCP 425.16(e)’s protection by CCP 425.17(c) as communications to actual or potential customers stating alleged facts about a business competitor’s goods or services. CCP 425.17(c) is not limited to comparative advertising. The parties to this suit were competitors because their services overlapped at least with respect to moving the trash bins.