In plaintiff's suit against a trade association and certain of its members alleging that the certification of personal care products as "organic" would constitute unfair competition and misleading advertising, trial court's denial of defendant's anti-SLAPP motion is affirmed where: 1) defendant has not met its burden of showing that the challenged cause of action arises from protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute; and 2) section 425.17 does not provide an alternate basis for denial of the motion to strike, as defendant is not "a personally primarily engaged in the business of selling or leasing goods or services" and the speaker requirement of section 425.17(c) is not met in this case.