## Q17 key (Review Flood)
1. Statement triage: "reuse needles" is a factual assertion, defamatory per se, and the case's center; "scam," "butchers," and similar are opinion or rhetorical hyperbole and not independently actionable. Missed: the complaint sweeps in strike-bait.
2. Lumen is a limited-purpose public figure on service quality and safety: the supplied rule's trigger is satisfied by the $340,000 advertising spend across broadcast, outdoor, and social channels, and the advertising's own safety and sterility claims put those subjects in issue. Actual malice is therefore the operating standard, provable against the terminated former employee through falsity plus motive and fabrication indicators, and against Velvet through the "flood them" instruction. An answer that applies a negligence standard without addressing the advertising predicate, or that treats the status as undetermined despite the supplied facts, fails this element. Missed: fault standard misapplied, the motion to strike lands, and fees shift.
3. The former-employee claim survives a special motion only if filed with the admissible proof in hand (compliance logs, supplier invoices, sharps records, authorship linkage); the discovery stay means the case must be built before filing. Missed: fees awarded to the needle reviewer.
4. Velvet: the leaked instruction plus the account-pattern evidence supports injurious falsehood and unfair competition, but the pecuniary-loss element needs causation work connecting the 18 percent decline to the fake reviews specifically; plead with the pattern, prove with targeted subpoenas. Missed: the strongest defendant exits on a provable-damages gap.
5. Platforms: immune from damages claims under the supplied rule; the productive path is policy-based removal reports (inauthentic coordinated accounts) armed with the pattern evidence. Missed: fee-burning claims against immune parties.
6. Anonymous accounts: the subpoena showing exists for the needle statement and the coordinated-fake pattern, not for pure-opinion reviews; sequence identification subpoenas before filing damages claims where possible. Missed: unmasking effort spent on protected speech.
7. The owner's reply to Renata Voss is a confidentiality-statute violation with statutory damages and its own plaintiff; take it down, remediate, and expect it as a counterweight in any negotiation. Renata's own review is substantially true or opinion and should not be sued. Missed: Lumen becomes a defendant in its own case.
8. The injunction demand: unavailable as prior restraint except post-adjudication repetition of specific adjudicated falsehoods; removal comes from platforms and settlements, not court orders this week. Missed: credibility spent on impossible relief.
9. Sequence: preserve everything; platform inauthenticity reports; retraction demand to the former employee; identification subpoenas; suit against the former employee (needle statement) and Velvet (coordinated falsehood) with evidence in hand; no platform suits; no Voss suit; fix the Voss violation first. The honest Friday answer: the provable case is buildable in weeks, not by Friday. Missed: the client's timetable drives a fee-shifted loss.