Schneider and Nguyen Filed Anti-SLAPP Motion in Utah
Defendants argue the lawsuit brought by BAM Franchising suppresses protected First Amendment 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 seeking to dismiss most claims in a lawsuit brought by BAM Franchising. The motion invokes Utahs Uniform Public Expression Protection Act to challenge the litigation.
Why it matters
The filing contends that the lawsuit acts as a weapon to suppress free speech and First Amendment rights. It further argues that BAM Franchising has failed to identify specific defamatory statements in its case.
The lawsuit currently contains 13 distinct causes of action against the defendants. This motion follows a broader trend as Utah is one of 17 states that have now adopted the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act.
The players
Ben Schneider
He is one of the defendants who filed an anti-SLAPP motion against the claims brought by BAM Franchising.
Victor Nguyen
He is a co-defendant alongside Ben Schneider in the legal dispute initiated by BAM Franchising.
BAM Franchising
It is the company that initiated the lawsuit, which previously sought a temporary restraining order against Ben Schneider.
Spencer Fane
This law firm represents the defendants and filed the motion to dismiss the claims under Utah state law.
The details
Attorneys from the firm Spencer Fane filed the motion to dismiss the majority of the plaintiffs claims. The action follows a recent settlement between BAM Franchising and the Mansell family, which included a formal apology and the dropping of claims against Bryan Mansell.
Timeline
Utah adopted the UPEPA anti-SLAPP law in mid-2023.
A court ruling in UHS of Provo Canyon v. Bliss occurred on September 24, 2024.
Market Landscape
The filing reflects the growing implementation of Utahs Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, which is a specific legal framework now being tested in state courts. This motion marks an active application of the law to limit litigation that allegedly suppresses public expression.
If the motion is successful, the company may be required to pay legal fees and costs, potentially impacting the financial resources allocated to the litigation. This case serves as a point of reference for how businesses operating in the state must handle public critiques.
The takeaway
This motion highlights the ongoing tension between corporate litigation and the protection of free speech under state statutes. Readers should note that legal strategies focusing on anti-SLAPP motions can fundamentally alter the trajectory and costs of civil disputes.
Further reading
Learn more about the latest regulatory developments in the state by visiting /business/openings/.
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?
